That's correct - anything in frameworks projects should be considered hardware independent.
Unfortunately, SurfaceFlinger is one of the areas that isn't as hardware-independent as we would like it to be. Expect to see improvements in this area in the future. I'm not the graphics expert, but hopefully someone will come along to respond to your question. On Dec 2, 5:19 pm, "Mohan Parthasarathy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks. I noticed that audio HAL is in audioflinger. I am assuming that this > also can run on top of ALSA and hence can be considered hardware > independent. Is that how it is decided whether something goes under hardware > or not .. > > Also, how does one hook up the 2D and 3D hardware acceleration. I saw > GPUHardware under surfaceflinger and Blithardware.cpp under ui.. Is the > interface defined somewhere > > thanks > mohan > > On 12/2/08, Dave Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The camera service ended up there because of a dependency on > > SurfaceFlinger. However, the camera service is not supposed to be > > hardware dependent. > > > The generic camera implementation creates fake YUV preview frames and > > passes back a canned JPEG for the image capture. You'll need to > > implement your own version of CameraHardwareInterface to bring up your > > camera hardware. > > > On Dec 2, 10:59 am, MohanParthasarathy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Under hardware/libhardware, i can see that most of the user space HAL > > > drivers are maintained. Why is that Camera is in a different place > > > frameworks/base/camera ? > > > > Also, can someone tell me whether the drivers provided under > > > libhardware and ril can work without any changes if i have the right > > > drivers in the kernel ? > > > > thanks > > > -mohan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: http://groups.google.com/group/android-porting -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
