On Fri, 2011-11-25 at 00:00 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > Looking at vesa.c, there is quite a chunk of code in there depending on > DGA.
I guess the question is, is this chunk of code actually doing anything useful/important, or is it just there to support DGA on VESA? If the latter then people who don't need/want DGA (which is probably everybody, nowadays) can just take it out. All that said, I would have thought that the VESA driver itself was pretty much a fringe interest in this day and age. Is anybody really using that on a shipping system? If it's just for qemux86 test harness purposes then maybe we could turn on the vesafb driver in the kernel and use the straight framebuffer driver in Xorg rather than the VESA one. > Is there any harm to building DGA apart from an extra package? Its a > self contained module isn't it? I don't think it's that self-contained. Admittedly it isn't all that big either, but still. > If so, we should just be able to turn it on, package it separately and > forget about it? > > Of course the ideal solution would be for someone to convert the vesa > driver to use the xrandr API... I don't quite understand what xrandr has to do with that. How does this relate to DGA? p. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
