On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 02:09:18PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > It's ugly, but that's not the point. The point is that all deployed > > versions of X (and even current X.org CVS head still, in fact) make this > > assumption. > > Oh, that's fine and that's not a problem. I will only repaint the > framebuffer on bit depth or line lenght changes. I'm trying to talk > about the _future_ here. That is support for dual head at the fbdev > level and other niceties.
I don't see the current system slowly evolving into some superb future system with an in kernel memory manager. The current APIs just have too many limitations. I think the memory manager must be the foundation of everything and after it's in place the fbdev API should be able to use it. The only change to simple fbdev apps would be that they can't get access to any offscreen memory as they do now. Something like DirectFB would need to change to accomodate the new system but I don't see that as a problem. I think the best short term option for radeonfb is to simply follow matroxfb's example and cut the memory into two parts. The cutoff point should probably be configurable via a module option. -- Ville Syrjälä [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sci.fi/~syrjala/ ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id396&op=click -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
