Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 22 May 2004 17:37:57 +0200 | From | Thomas Winischhofer <> | Subject | Re: ioctl number 0xF3 |
| |
Francois Romieu wrote: >He can surely tell when an egg stinks. However Arjan is not a chicken.
I didn't mean that as any sort of insult. I am just tired of the XFree86 people telling me "implement a generic interface". I write one single driver and want the users of this driver to have some sort of comfort. Waiting until someone comes up with some generic solution (for a design of which I don't have time nor the required knowledge about a zillion different systems) I am old and grey.
> Thomas Winischhofer <thomas@winischhofer.net> : >>Is 64 out of, what's that, 65536 too much to ask? Well, I could live >>with 32 as well... > > Reserving a generous ioctl range without any clear interface will make > some people nervous. If you can not specify the interface now, try to > separate the generic/specific part of it and use sub-ioctl for the really > scary things as it will make the future life easier. > > If you have some pointers to the existing code, that may help too.
Well, before I start implementing it (further), I thought it would be smart to be able to rely on certain things. As long as I don't even know if I get the numbers I don't write code... but frankly, the current development sisfb version available on my website has a very few of the intended ioctls already implemented.
The interface I intend to use matches the one the X driver has (using the Xv extension as an ioctl replacement) and will be documented. Since I develope both the SiS kernel framebuffer driver as well as the SiS X driver this will reduce duplicate code and ensures good cooperation. Furthermore, there could be a common library for both the framebuffer and X.
Hm. Were the matrox folks asked for a "clear interface" in advance when they started using the 'n' ioctls? Am I too polite? ;)
sisfb uses a few ioctls already, as an extension to the generic fb related ioctls. (Although the version currently in mainline 2.4 is not in any way 32/64 bit safe, and neiter is the mainline 2.6 version yet as regards the obviously required ioctl32 emulation stuff - investigating this at the moment).
Thomas
-- Thomas Winischhofer Vienna/Austria thomas AT winischhofer DOT net http://www.winischhofer.net/ twini AT xfree86 DOT org - 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/
| |