On Wednesday 16 March 2005 05:25, Timothy Miller wrote: > 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.
Yah, that was me being stupid. You're entirely right about that. Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
