Re: Framebuffer

[Johan Grip <ogun@ogun.org>]

Marco Gerards wrote:
> Johan Grip <ogun@ogun.org> writes:
> 
> 
>>Marco Gerards wrote:
>><SNIP>
>>
>>>Does this make sense or does this just suck?  I hope many people will
>>>reply on this so I can start hacking ASAP.
>>>
>>
>>This does indeed make sense. For the project I am involved in, AROS,
>>we already use a patched version of GRUB with vesa support in it.
>>
>>Our patch allows GRUB to set a vesa mode before handing over control
>>to the OS, so we do not need to mess with realmode stuff in our code.
> 
> 
> This is a bit of a different discussion, I think (although related).
> What you are suggesting is that the VESA part of the multiboot
> specification should be implemented, right?  IIRC it is possible to
> set a VESA mode just before booting the kernel if I remember the
> multiboot spec correctly.  The code for that and the framebuffer can
> be shared somehow.
> 
Indeed, that was my thought. Once you have code for a vesa framebuffer 
in place, adding the multiboot compliancy would be rather simple. So 
they go hand in hand, atleast for vesa.

> Both a complete multiboot (or a new multiboot specification) and a
> framebuffer for GRUB 2 are important to have IMHO.
> 
Yes, agreed.
I think our code does not follow the multiboot spec though, as we want 
to be able to select a screenmode from the grub menu. The multiboot spec 
states that the kernel image should have info in it regarding screen 
mode etc.

//Johan