On Maw, 2004-05-18 at 21:14, Jon Smirl wrote: > I was thinking ptmx/pty, or do you want to use tty? With ptmx/pty you can get > rid of the tty devices.
You need the tty devices for the boot/kernel console and the code specifc to them is tiny. For the usermode one its clearly ptmx/pty > I wasn't thinking that the kernel interface was standardized. For example DRM > has some common IOCTLs and then hundreds of per chipset ones. There is no > standard bitblt or draw char IOCTL. The DRM layer provides the needed basic kernel services, be they standardised or not. The question of what library is used really doesn't matter. Yes someone would have to write a lot of code for many chips with DRI and chip specific code - but thats up to them. > > I definitely don't want to try sharing the device driver on VT switch, that will > take us right back to where we are. Each device should have a single client > library driving it at a time. But this works if the program implement VT switch > is the owner of the device. > > So you don't have any problem with pulling VT support out of the kernel? You need the code to handle video context switches. You also need vt's because you have multiple security contexts on the PC console and good reason to keep that when using SELinux. VT switch is easy however. DRI+X already handles that, and we never have two people using the VT at once. Its one device, multiple handles only one currently active - like many other drivers ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: SourceForge.net Broadband Sign-up now for SourceForge Broadband and get the fastest 6.0/768 connection for only $19.95/mo for the first 3 months! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=2562&alloc_id=6184&op=click -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
