Re: OpenGL-based framebuffer concepts

["D. Hazelton" <dhazelton@enter.net>]

On Monday 29 May 2006 22:10, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On 5/29/06, Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
> > Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > These are very reasonable rules... but still, I think we need to move
> > > away from vgacon/vesafb. We need proper hardware drivers for our
> > > hardware.
> >
> > I agree we need proper drivers, but moving away from vesafb will be
> > tough... moving away from vgacon is likely impossible for many many
> > years yet.
> >
> > Once proper hardware drivers exist, you will still need to support
> > booting into a situation where you probably need video before a driver
> > can be loaded -- e.g. distro installers.  Server owners will likely
> > prefer vgacon over a huge video driver they will never use for anything
> > but text mode console.
>
> These are areas that definitely need more discussion and design work
> once we can come to some kind of basic agreement on where to start. I
> would definitely like to reduce the number of permutations on how
> video drivers can be combined to an absolute minimum. For example
> vesafb has caused me a number of problems when it is used
> simultaneously with other drivers.
>
> Other areas that can be explored:
> 1) Multiple active consoles on multiple video cards
> 2) User space console driver
> 3) Ownership of video hardware by the logged in user
> 4) Using graphics mode to do console for complex Asian languages
> 5) Concept of a safe mode console that will work in all environments

Not until the framework gets layed, and preferably not unless someone can 
provide a good reason for taking these steps (besides #1 - that is one I 
think has potential. A console set aside for, perhaps, little more that 
keeping a log of error messages.)

DRH