Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-04-04 Thread Alan Cox
> It's nothing fantastic, but I've had a number of people tell me that > it was useful for them. It does document some stuff nicely - not alas the bits I need to figure out at the moment but its definitely a nice reference to the basic setup. (ponders Voodoo2 DRI)

Re: Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-04-04 Thread Alan Cox
It's nothing fantastic, but I've had a number of people tell me that it was useful for them. It does document some stuff nicely - not alas the bits I need to figure out at the moment but its definitely a nice reference to the basic setup. (ponders Voodoo2 DRI)

Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-24 Thread Laurent Pinchart
On Wednesday 23 March 2011 15:09:54 Robert Fekete wrote: > On 21 March 2011 21:08, Alex Deucher wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 20:25, Jesse Barnes wrote: > >>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:43 + timofonic timofonic wrote: >

Re: Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-24 Thread Laurent Pinchart
On Wednesday 23 March 2011 15:09:54 Robert Fekete wrote: On 21 March 2011 21:08, Alex Deucher alexdeuc...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 20:25, Jesse Barnes wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:43 + timofonic timofonic

Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-23 Thread Robert Fekete
On 21 March 2011 21:08, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven > wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 20:25, Jesse Barnes >> wrote: >>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:43 + >>> timofonic timofonic wrote: So if KMS is so cool and provides many advantages over

Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-22 Thread Michal Suchanek
On 21 March 2011 20:25, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:43 + > timofonic timofonic wrote: >> So if KMS is so cool and provides many advantages over fbdev and >> such... Why isn't more widely used intead of still relying on fbdev? >> Why still using fbdev emulation (that is

Re: Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-22 Thread Michal Suchanek
On 21 March 2011 20:25, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:43 + timofonic timofonic timofo...@gmail.com wrote: So if KMS is so cool and provides many advantages over fbdev and such... Why isn't more widely used intead of still relying on fbdev? Why

Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Ondrej Zary
On Monday 21 March 2011 20:34:38 Corbin Simpson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:43 + > > > > timofonic timofonic wrote: > >> So if KMS is so cool and provides many advantages over fbdev and > >> such... Why isn't more widely used

Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Matt Turner
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Alan Cox wrote: >> ? 1) inertia: fbdev has been around a lot longer, and provides most of >> ? what embedded devices need anyway >> ? 2) feature set: why bother doing a full KMS driver if you're not >> ? going to use any of the additional features it would provide

Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Alan Cox
> 1) inertia: fbdev has been around a lot longer, and provides most of > what embedded devices need anyway > 2) feature set: why bother doing a full KMS driver if you're not > going to use any of the additional features it would provide (output > management, memory management, execution

Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 20:25, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:43 + > timofonic timofonic wrote: >> So if KMS is so cool and provides many advantages over fbdev and >> such... Why isn't more widely used intead of still relying on fbdev? >> Why still using fbdev emulation

Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread timofonic timofonic
Hello. I have some rants and questions about fbdev, KMS and graphics stuff to Linux. I'm just a mere user and occasional system administrator (and going to start computer programming soon), but I hope to be able to understand this situation better. So if KMS is so cool and provides many

Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Alex Deucher
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote: > On Monday 21 March 2011 20:34:38 Corbin Simpson wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Jesse Barnes > wrote: >> > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:43 + >> > >> > timofonic timofonic wrote: >> >> So if KMS is so cool and provides many

Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Alex Deucher
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 20:25, Jesse Barnes > wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:43 + >> timofonic timofonic wrote: >>> So if KMS is so cool and provides many advantages over fbdev and >>> such... Why isn't more widely used

Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:20:08 + Alan Cox wrote: > > 1) inertia: fbdev has been around a lot longer, and provides most of > > what embedded devices need anyway > > 2) feature set: why bother doing a full KMS driver if you're not > > going to use any of the additional features it would

Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:34:38 -0700 Corbin Simpson wrote: > Related: We are still missing basic userspace tools (kmsset, e.g.), > some kind of direct KMS console (kmscon would work, if it existed), > and an xf86-video-modesetting which compiles and works (this is > actually possible now, with some

Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:50:20 +0100 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 20:25, Jesse Barnes > wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:43 + > > timofonic timofonic wrote: > >> So if KMS is so cool and provides many advantages over fbdev and > >> such... Why isn't more widely

Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Corbin Simpson
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:43 + > timofonic timofonic wrote: >> So if KMS is so cool and provides many advantages over fbdev and >> such... Why isn't more widely used intead of still relying on fbdev? >> Why still using fbdev emulation

Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:43 + timofonic timofonic wrote: > So if KMS is so cool and provides many advantages over fbdev and > such... Why isn't more widely used intead of still relying on fbdev? > Why still using fbdev emulation (that is partial and somewhat broken, > it seems) instead using

Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:20:24 +0100 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > As noone responded to my question in > http://www.spinics.net/lists/dri-devel/msg08851.html > (yes, it was a bit hidden in a thread), I'm asking it here again (and > also on the Wayland > mailing list). > > Basically I'm still

Re: Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:43 + timofonic timofonic timofo...@gmail.com wrote: So if KMS is so cool and provides many advantages over fbdev and such... Why isn't more widely used intead of still relying on fbdev? Why still using fbdev emulation (that is partial and somewhat broken, it

Re: Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread timofonic timofonic
Hello. I have some rants and questions about fbdev, KMS and graphics stuff to Linux. I'm just a mere user and occasional system administrator (and going to start computer programming soon), but I hope to be able to understand this situation better. So if KMS is so cool and provides many

Re: Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Corbin Simpson
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:43 + timofonic timofonic timofo...@gmail.com wrote: So if KMS is so cool and provides many advantages over fbdev and such... Why isn't more widely used intead of still relying on fbdev?

Re: Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 20:25, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:43 + timofonic timofonic timofo...@gmail.com wrote: So if KMS is so cool and provides many advantages over fbdev and such... Why isn't more widely used intead of still relying on fbdev?

Re: Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:50:20 +0100 Geert Uytterhoeven ge...@linux-m68k.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 20:25, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:43 + timofonic timofonic timofo...@gmail.com wrote: So if KMS is so cool and provides many advantages

Re: Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:34:38 -0700 Corbin Simpson mostawesomed...@gmail.com wrote: Related: We are still missing basic userspace tools (kmsset, e.g.), some kind of direct KMS console (kmscon would work, if it existed), and an xf86-video-modesetting which compiles and works (this is actually

Re: Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Alex Deucher
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven ge...@linux-m68k.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 20:25, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:43 + timofonic timofonic timofo...@gmail.com wrote: So if KMS is so cool and provides many advantages over

Re: Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Alan Cox
1) inertia: fbdev has been around a lot longer, and provides most of what embedded devices need anyway 2) feature set: why bother doing a full KMS driver if you're not going to use any of the additional features it would provide (output management, memory management, execution

Re: Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Ondrej Zary
On Monday 21 March 2011 20:34:38 Corbin Simpson wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:43 + timofonic timofonic timofo...@gmail.com wrote: So if KMS is so cool and provides many advantages over fbdev and

Re: Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:20:08 + Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote: 1) inertia: fbdev has been around a lot longer, and provides most of what embedded devices need anyway 2) feature set: why bother doing a full KMS driver if you're not going to use any of the additional

Re: Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Matt Turner
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote:   1) inertia: fbdev has been around a lot longer, and provides most of   what embedded devices need anyway   2) feature set: why bother doing a full KMS driver if you're not   going to use any of the additional features

Re: Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-21 Thread Alex Deucher
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Ondrej Zary li...@rainbow-software.org wrote: On Monday 21 March 2011 20:34:38 Corbin Simpson wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:43 + timofonic timofonic timofo...@gmail.com

Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-19 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
As noone responded to my question in http://www.spinics.net/lists/dri-devel/msg08851.html (yes, it was a bit hidden in a thread), I'm asking it here again (and also on the Wayland mailing list). Basically I'm still puzzled about this KMS thing. If the name "Kernel Mode Setting" covers it, then

Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-19 Thread Rob Clark
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > As noone responded to my question in > http://www.spinics.net/lists/dri-devel/msg08851.html > (yes, it was a bit hidden in a thread), I'm asking it here again (and > also on the Wayland > mailing list). > > Basically I'm still puzzled

Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-19 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
As noone responded to my question in http://www.spinics.net/lists/dri-devel/msg08851.html (yes, it was a bit hidden in a thread), I'm asking it here again (and also on the Wayland mailing list). Basically I'm still puzzled about this KMS thing. If the name Kernel Mode Setting covers it, then how

Re: Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?

2011-03-19 Thread Rob Clark
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven ge...@linux-m68k.org wrote: As noone responded to my question in http://www.spinics.net/lists/dri-devel/msg08851.html (yes, it was a bit hidden in a thread), I'm asking it here again (and also on the Wayland mailing list). Basically I'm