I'm almost entirely in support of this plan too :-) except I don't think it will ever make sense to do things like video-nested or VNC as any combination of video-modesetting and libinput.
But for everything else, yes, absolutely, throw that code away. :-) Jamey On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 12:19:41PM -0400, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: > And on the other side, you have people like me who simply want to replace > all video drivers with -modesetting, and all input drivers with libinput :) > > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Jamey Sharp <ja...@minilop.net> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 09:07:22AM -0300, Laércio de Sousa wrote: > > > Hello there! > > > > > > Some time ago I've wrotten asking for current status of xf86-video-nested > > > development. I believe that, for a more robust single-card multiseat > > setup > > > with systemd-logind, a "real" Xorg server with some kind of nested video > > > driver works better than Xephyr, since it still lacks proper input > > > hotplugging, for example. > > > > > > On the other hand, xf86-video-nested have received no relevant > > improvements > > > for years, while Xephyr graphics support development is quite active. > > > > Wow, I can't believe that capstone project was almost three years ago > > already. > > > > > So I'm thinking on rewriting xf86-video-nested driver based on latest > > > Xephyr code. A more ambicious idea is to identify and move all video > > > related code that could be useful for both Xephyr and nested driver to a > > > shared library, namely "libephyr", and link them against it. We could > > even > > > rename xf86-video-nested to xf86-video-ephyr to reflect the new approach. > > > > > > I have absolutely no experience in writing video drivers for Xorg, but > > I'm > > > open for learning. Any feedback from you will be welcome. > > > > In my opinion, this would be great. One of my long-term goals is to have > > only one X server implementation that anyone cares about, so being able > > to replace both Xnest and Xephyr with Xorg+video-ephyr sounds good to > > me. (And ideally, Xdmx would die in a fire.) > > > > If I had my way, you wouldn't need to build a shared library, because > > you'd just replace Xephyr. But practicality suggests that your shared > > library plan is a better migration strategy. > > > > I might suggest that you try hacking stuff into video-nested by > > copy-paste before you try to figure out what shared library API you > > need, though. It's much easier to make progress through incrementally > > testable changes. > > > > I hope this helps. :-) > > Jamey > > > > _______________________________________________ > > xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development > > Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel > > Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel > > > > > > -- > Jasper
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel