Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 Jun 2006 20:31:25 +0300 | From | Ville Syrjälä <> | Subject | Re: OpenGL-based framebuffer concepts |
| |
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 04:19:55PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > >>> Without specifying a design here are a few requirements I would have: > >>> > >>> 1) The kernel subsystem should be agnostic of the display server. The > >>> solution should not be X specific. Any display system should be able > >>> to use it, SDL, Y Windows, Fresco, etc... > >> > >> of course, but that doesn't mean it can't re-use X's code, they are > >> the best drivers we have. you forget everytime that the kernel fbdev > >> drivers aren't even close, I mean not by a long long way apart from > >> maybe radeon. > > > >matroxfb is clearly better than the X driver. atyfb too IMO. > > Okay maybe matroxfb, but if atyfb is the mach64, it really isn't as > good, the last few times I tried it,
When was that exactly, and what kernel? I've been using atyfb+DirectFB exclusively for a few years with chips ranging from VT2 to Rage Mobility.
> it just made my LCD bloom, X > worked,
The X driver probably doesn't touch as much of the hardware as atyfb.
> mach64 is probably the most complex thing as there must be at > least 15 variations on the theme.... mach64 isn't a chip family so > much as a chip tribe... I've since burned my mach64 as a sacrifice....
If you ignore the pre-CT chps it isn't too bad.
-- Ville Syrjälä syrjala@sci.fi http://www.sci.fi/~syrjala/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |