On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
> What if we only guaranteed that the framebuffer is mapped when it's
> showing on the screen?
I think that works ok. We only care about printk being immediate in that
case, and if it gets buffered I don't think we care.
> printk doesn't need to write to the framebuffer immediately when X
> isn't running (since the framebuffer isn't shown) and presumably the
> framebuffer needs to be pinned somewhere when it's being displayed
> anyway. This would involve fbcon knowing how to buffer text to be
> shown later so that printk still works in interrupt context.
But doesn't fbcon do that _anyway_ for VC switching?
(I've tried to stay out of fbcon, and have traditionally personally always
preferred just regular VGA text mode, so I really have no clue about the
internals).
Linus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference!
Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250.
Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today!
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org
--
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
