Re: [ PATCH-LINK ] fb accel capabilities - take 2

David Eger wrote:

I'll add some comments to the patch :)

The intent for the FBINFO_HWACCEL_fnName flags is to say that the hardware will
be smart about it (i.e., it ought to be fast).  New fb drivers have been
filling in copyarea() with cfb_copyarea() (that is, the software version) or
more opaquely filling in copyarea() with their own mydriver_copyarea(), and
then conditionally calling cfb_copyarea() depending on the noaccel flag.

Evidently.

With the patch, there are a bunch of these "is X really hardware accelerated?"
flags in fbinfo->flags, as well as FBINFO_HWACCEL_DISABLED which should tell
the driver to not use its acceleration engine --- and use unaccelerated
versions of copyarea(), fillrect(), imageblit(); and FBINFO_MODULE (is the
driver loaded as a module?)

So far so good. Can't see a reason for partly disabling acceleration, 
but ok.

quoted

Erm, I wasn't aware of this. Interesting... Personally, since sisfb does
y-panning I didn't see any speed regressions compared with 2.4 yet.

So with my patch, you'd see a regression in speed until you flag that your
driver can do hardware panning.  I thought it would be good for our small
brains to put all the flags for this in one place instead of testing the
(x/y)panstep variables for zero...

There is another issue with panning. How does the new fbcon code decide 
how big the virtual screen shall be (if it cares at all)? Will there be 
a change in behavior?

Right now, this is more or less a hack: sisfb, unless explicitly told 
not to do so (nomax or noypan), will maximize the virtual y resolution 
on all var's it receives. DirectFB disables this "auto-maximizing" 
feature with a respective ioctl before changing the mode etc. Works 
fine. Dunno if other drivers do the same. Advantage is that users get 
the fastest possible console by default (without using fbset or the like 
to set the virtual screen size.)

Do I have to expect this mechanism to fail? IOW: (No, not io-write, in 
other words ;)) Will the panning stuff change in the fbcon layer 
breaking this?

quoted

Are these to set/cleared exclusively by the driver or must the driver
expect them to change? (I mean for example that fbset in 2.4 could be
used to disable acceleration, which is important to DirectFB)

*really*?  I was wondering about that.  I'll have to go see how that works...

Assumingly simple. Set/clears FB_ACCELF_TEXT. DirectFB uses the same 
technique. Your new flags will break both.

quoted

Is there any driver already finished so that I can look it up somewhere?

There's a patch for radeonfb (my video card ;-) )

I already saw that. Will take a closer look.

quoted

Will an old driver (status as of now) work at all with the new flags not
being touched? Will it compile? (That *should* work IMHO)

/me nods.  It should. I tried compiling all of the drivers, and most of them
compiled.  The few drivers that didn't seemed to be pure 2.4 API code that no
one has loved for a long time :-/  Ah well..

(Assume you mean 2.5 API...?)

If they should compile you will need the mentioned compat-#define's in 
the long run...

Thomas

-- 
Thomas Winischhofer
Vienna/Austria
thomas AT winischhofer DOT net          http://www.winischhofer.net/
twini AT xfree86 DOT org


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. 
Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click