On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:43:37 +0100, Nicolai Haehnle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree. I don't know Timothy's precise reasoning, but I could imagine that > using PIO for the cursor is better for latency. No. It's just one less thing that the DMA engine doesn't have to be able to talk to. Mind you, that depends on the design. I'm just not making any promises about optimizing such a trivial thing. Even if you CAN do cursor by DMA, why bother? It won't save much time, because it's not something that's done often or in bulk. Plus, you may want to change it on a vertical interrupt (to avoid possible video glitches), which means you're in a different context from the one that manages the ring buffer, and you don't want to have to mess with locks or deal with race conditions. Doing it by PIO is entirely modeless. _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
