O/H Denis Oliver Kropp έγραψε: > George Tsalikis wrote: >> O/H Denis Oliver Kropp έγραψε: >>> George Tsalikis wrote: >>>> O/H Denis Oliver Kropp έγραψε: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> after getting too depressed by the current state of the FBDev backend >>>>> with the new >>>>> surface core I decided to drop FBDev support as it no longer fits into >>>>> the architecture. >>>>> >>>>> If you feel you like to fix the frame buffer device system module or >>>>> better the frame >>>>> buffer device itself, you're welcome to help the FBDev backend to creep >>>>> over the 1.2 hurdle... >>>>> >>>>> One major bug at the moment is mode switching and pitch values being >>>>> wrong. It's dumb to >>>>> return the pitch of the variable mode settings in the fixed settings >>>>> structure anyhow, but >>>>> if you like to start with the above mentioned mission, that's where it >>>>> could begin. >>>>> >>>>> And while you're at it, please also add an ioctl to just simply set the >>>>> display offset without >>>>> a virtual resolution and x/y offset values within the whole frame >>>>> buffer... >>>>> >>>>> I have no idea why the FBDev backend uses the wrong pitch (4096) after >>>>> switching to RGB16 which >>>>> should have a pitch of 2048. One out of ten tries did work though. I >>>>> remember it has been >>>>> working once I added several workarounds and hacks to keep the FBDev >>>>> backend alive, but somehow >>>>> the code or core have changed, I don't know and I'm not in the mood of >>>>> spending time on cruft >>>>> like VTs, FBDev etc... >>>>> >>>>> Volunteers are welcome, urgently, I'm going to make a first release >>>>> candidate of 1.2 tomorrow, >>>>> most likely after removing the fbdev system module. >>>>> >>>> How are things going with FBDev? >>>> >>>> IS there a roadmap about supporting the new modesetting infrastructure? >>>> Esp. now that modesetting is entering the kernel... DirectFB without >>>> FBDev is simply not DirectFB! >>> What new infrastructure? >>> >>> Mode setting has been in kernel all time. >>> >> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=xorg_kms_2008&num=1 > > Doesn't look bad :) > No it doesn't :) My question is, is any planning being made about the situation? I am not for embedded use of DirectFB, i just dislike X and i am dreaming about a future DFB desktop... In the meantime i am learning the DFB API, struggling through tutorials, examples and the reference...
_______________________________________________ directfb-dev mailing list directfb-dev@directfb.org http://mail.directfb.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/directfb-dev
