Re: [directfb-dev] Re: [ANNOUNCE]: VM86 Daemon

[Antonino Daplas <adaplas@pol.net>]

On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 20:08, Denis Oliver Kropp wrote:
>
> I'm wondering if there are plans to have /dev/fbX provide
> bus/device/function number for easier mapping. It's PCI related,
> but it would help fbDRI etc.
>

Not too sure about this.
 
> > > also be able to get the /dev/fb code into the kernel.
> > > Getting a driver in that creates /dev/vm86 is going to
> > > be harder. 
> > 
> > I would rather have the code rejected than back-dooring it behind fbdev.
> > If it's going to be accepted, it has to be on its own merit.
> 
> If vm86 doesn't (need to) know anything about the framebuffer drivers
> I would prefer an extra device, too.

Yes, /dev/vm86 is completely separate from /dev/fbX.

> 
> Why is it called /dev/vm86 if it's not restricted to x86?
> Sounds more like a /dev/firmwared or /dev/biosd.
> 

It actually started as /dev/vesafb.  It seems that it can still become
more generic.  There are at least 2 ideas on this though:

1.  Make primary protocol x86 encoded, and just let the daemon convert
it to something the backend will understand.  For example, VBE int 0x10
ax = 0x4f01 (Set Video mode), will be encoded by the daemon into another
protocol depending on the backend. This will be easy for /dev/vm86, hard
for the daemon.

2  Make /dev/vm86 also pass non-x86 requests.  This will be hard for
/dev/vm86, but easy for the daemon.

Tony



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: 
Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! 
No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server
http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/