[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fwd: [PATCH 1/2] Framebuffer split

From: Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH 1/2] Framebuffer split
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:10:08 +0200

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Michal Suchanek<address@hidden> wrote:
> Yes, but set_viewport works on the active target. You create an
> offscreen target and set it as the active target and want to set the
> viewport on it. Depending on its size this function either needlessly
> limits you to the current screen mode or allows illegal viewport to be
> set.
> It simply compares apples and oranges.
Fixed in repo. New patch is coming after testing
> I just want the drivers not touch the render target structure so that
> it is possible to add features to video_fb (such as framebuffer
> rotation) later without breaking the drivers that do not use them.
> Because it breaks encapsulation and needlessly duplicates code.
I'm not sure that encapsulation is good in this particular case.
Clearly the driver should take the lead and not the framebuffer
library. Now it's coded with "library of functions" concept and
changing concept will put strains on drivers. I don't know which
approach is better in a long run
>> Both pieces of code check against the current mode. It's just because
>> vbe does most of job for us that this code is a bunch of assignments
>> but it may be more complex. I don't see what your problem with filling
>> render target about screen parameters is
> Exactly that it may get more complex. You have to change the code in
> all drivers then.
Why? Driver just sets fields framebuf? In which cases does it need to
be modified?
>> Then you pass video mode info which is just a screen render target
> Yes, without any needless redundancy.
Passing framebuffer parameters one way or another you have redundancy
> For that they should be able to create and use render targets but not
> manipulate them directly.
They do. They need to say "this render target is at ... with these parameters"
> The mode_info is already part of the framebuffer so I only ask that
> the driver fills in the mode_info and has a render target created from
> that rather than creating a render target itself.
mode_info lacks crucial data like framebuffer address.
> If features are later added to the render target (such as rotation)
> this code needs to be aware of them. However, if the structure was
> filled out in fb_video then these new features are transparent.
But if a driver partially accelerates rotation it needs to tell which
buffers are rotated and which aren't. Basically we have 2 possible
benefits but I'm not sure which one is better. What do others think?
> Thanks
> Michal
> _______________________________________________
> Grub-devel mailing list
> address@hidden

Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko

Personal git repository:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]