Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Jon Tombs <> | | Subject | Re: SUMMARY: GGI/X : the other way?? | | Date | Mon, 6 Apr 1998 13:14:05 +0200 (MET DST) |
| |
Alan Cox said: > > IIRC, DGA requires root access on the part of the client (the X server > > simply gives the DGA client an offset into /dev/mem, and the client is > > responsible for actually mmapping it), since it needs to mmap /dev/mem to > > get at the framebuffer ... from there, we get back to mostly the same > > problems as in SVGALib. > > Thats simply an implementation flaw with DGA not a design flaw.
An fb device would solve this, but as linux didn't have a revoke syscall I never sent my DGA compatible /dev/fb to linus. The security issues of a publically readable /dev/fb are very compicated (I would like to know how ggi has tried to get round them).
> > Yeah, pretty much, although IIRC, DGA apps really don't have any good way to > > access acceleration at all anyway. > > Yes. That is a -big- issue.
As the XFree96 4.0 drivers will be modular it could link them in, but we get back to the "must be root" problems. But if you are going to use a lot of accelarated stuff, it is probably better staying in X and using MIT shmem. X is already optimized for the cards accelarate features..
DGA was added for the apps (games) that just wanted a lot of framebuffer bandwidth. To be exact I wrote if for Dave Taylor for xquake...
> fbcon is modular if it needs to be, and it deals with accelerations it needs > to know about in text mode and exposes the other stuff to the X server. It > deals with the mode changes too.
Yes I think fbcon has all that is needed.
Jon.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
|  |