Hi Tom,
you are right in noting that there is no such thing as a reference
backend. I do most of the testing with x11 myself.
x11: easy to maintain, easy to test. Pretty 'default', so will cover
most areas. Cons: no resolution or colour format switching supported.
res & format fixed in config file. Weak support for multi-buffering.
fbdev or devmem: most flexible. Hardware acceleration for supported
cards, this includes TextureTriangles (which has no software fallback).
I would advice to pick fbdev here, but make sure you have a
well-supported card that supports the basic resolutions and colour
formats (that's the catch with fbdev). I am sure there are more
considerations I've forgotten, but this will get you pretty far. It
would also most closely match the way in which it will be used.
Greets
Niels
Tom Cooksey wrote:
Hi,
I help maintain Qt's DirectFB backend. I'm looking for a "reference"
DirectFB backend we can run (& fix) our autotests against. There
appears to be several candidates:
fbdev
sdl
x11
Of these, I've personally found x11 to be pretty useful. However, I'm
not sure if it should be the one we use as a reference. What would be
nice is to test bugs reported by customers on the reference platform
to see if the bug really is with Qt, or if it's with their DirectFB
implementation.
Any advice would be very welcome!
Cheers,
Tom
_______________________________________________
directfb-users mailing list
directfb-users@directfb.org
http://mail.directfb.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/directfb-users
--
.------------------------------------------.
| DirectFB - Hardware accelerated graphics |
| http://www.directfb.org/ |
"------------------------------------------"
_______________________________________________
directfb-users mailing list
directfb-users@directfb.org
http://mail.directfb.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/directfb-users
