From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Subject: Re: [Patch] Fix keymap support for PVFB. Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 15:10:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20070703141035.GA8410@redhat.com> References: <06bd01c7bc96$f8a38210$dab2220a@VF03007L> <20070702120957.GA23623@redhat.com> <21c701c7bd4c$c178c4b0$dab2220a@VF03007L> Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <21c701c7bd4c$c178c4b0$dab2220a@VF03007L> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Kasai Takanori Cc: xen-devel , Markus Armbruster List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 05:32:34PM +0900, Kasai Takanori wrote: > Hi Daniel & Markus, > > >On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 07:51:36PM +0900, Kasai Takanori wrote: > >>However, I think that it should do this with xenkbd who is originally the > >>driver on the FrontEnd side. > >>It will be problem if the HVM domain is working on PVFB in the future. > > > >I honestly can't see HVM using the PVFB at any time in the forseeable > >future > >unless PVFB is further developed to not suck. ie being able to change the > >resolution / bpp would be a start for PVFB - something HVM can already do > >trivially. > > Does it mean not to support making the HVM domain work on PVFB? Sure you /could/ do it. I'm just saying there's no real point in trying to though, since the HVM framebuffer has much more functionality than the paravirt framebuffer. ie why would you want make HVM use a worse framebuffer ? Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|