Re: framebuffer ioctl

Otto Wyss wrote:

Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
 

quoted

Would there be any major opposition to my adding
some additional functions to the framebuffer ioctl
interface? I want to add basic drawing functions,
nothing too fancy, but enough to do away with things
like SVGAlib.
Zack
   

IMO it should only be done if all of the graphic libs like SVGAlib, GGI,
DirectFB can profit from it. IMO it's very important that the future API
of the framebuffer in kernel 2.7.x is discussed before such changes are
done. Maybe a wish list should be started.

O. Wyss
 

Some reasons for moving drawing routines into the kernel include
(correct me if I'm wrong)

1. there is some needless duplication of effort between these
various fullscreen-gui projects (svgalib, ggi, etc)
2. there is afaik presently no good facility for adding acceleration
support for things like drawing lines
3. the chance that any fullscreen-gui project will become broken
due to a new kernel is real (SVGAlib is broken with 2.4.26 & 2.6.7)
4. new features would be optional anyway: fullscreen-guis need not
recognize their existence, but would benefit from doing so
since some fb drivers would override the generic routines
to implement accelerated routines.

Zack




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5047&alloc_id=10808&op=click