On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:00:05 +0200, Ville Syrjälä <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > DirectFB has it's own asbitration mechanism. It doesn't support using > multiple framebuffer devices at the same time. For that to work DirectFB > would just have to know if some of the framebuffer devices are actually > different outputs of the same card so that it could associate both with > the same lock and accelerator state. > > With the current system I don't see much chance of using accelerated fbcon > on one head and accelerated DirectFB (or something else) on the other.
It looks to be like there needs to be new rules for framebuffer access. X needs to change, why can't DirectFB change too? This is why we have so much conflict in graphics. Everyone thinks they completely own the hardware and can do whatever they want with it. It's obvious to me, if we add universal aribtration everyone has to change and follow the new rules. Aonther approach would be to just say you have to choose to run one of X, DirectFB, FBUI, XGL and you can't switch between them. Other than developers I don't know if anyone really runs more than one of these at a time. Here's another one: http://home.comcast.net/~plinius/fbui.html -- Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id396&op=click -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
