On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 20:08, Denis Oliver Kropp wrote: > > I'm wondering if there are plans to have /dev/fbX provide > bus/device/function number for easier mapping. It's PCI related, > but it would help fbDRI etc. >
Not too sure about this. > > > also be able to get the /dev/fb code into the kernel. > > > Getting a driver in that creates /dev/vm86 is going to > > > be harder. > > > > I would rather have the code rejected than back-dooring it behind fbdev. > > If it's going to be accepted, it has to be on its own merit. > > If vm86 doesn't (need to) know anything about the framebuffer drivers > I would prefer an extra device, too. Yes, /dev/vm86 is completely separate from /dev/fbX. > > Why is it called /dev/vm86 if it's not restricted to x86? > Sounds more like a /dev/firmwared or /dev/biosd. > It actually started as /dev/vesafb. It seems that it can still become more generic. There are at least 2 ideas on this though: 1. Make primary protocol x86 encoded, and just let the daemon convert it to something the backend will understand. For example, VBE int 0x10 ax = 0x4f01 (Set Video mode), will be encoded by the daemon into another protocol depending on the backend. This will be easy for /dev/vm86, hard for the daemon. 2 Make /dev/vm86 also pass non-x86 requests. This will be hard for /dev/vm86, but easy for the daemon. Tony -- Info: To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe directfb-dev" as subject.
