Re: Some questions

[Sven Luther <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>]

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 09:33:34AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, James Simmons wrote:
> > > > We should split the monitor programing stuff out from stuff like bpp etc.
> > > > Now if you think about it we can do things like change the bpp without 
> > > > having to redo the monitor programming. This is the flaw with the old and 
> > > > even the new api. 
> > > 
> > > You could have done that from the beginning. Just look at which fields have
> > > changed and which haven't.
> > 
> > I should of but didn't because I knew driver would take teh path of lest 
> > resistance to port there drivers. TO much change would have made the 
> > current situtation much much worst. 
> 
> One other reason why this isn't done is because X may interfere with it. If we
> don't do a full register update, but change the parts that need a change only,
> we will see less flickering (no PLL reprogramming), but we will suffer if X
> doesn't restore the registers to the exact same values they were before.

X is supposed to do that, even if it doesn't know anything about fbdevs,
maybe especially if it doesn't know anything about fbdevs. If it knows
about fbdev and uses it, X should not be touching the modes anyway,
right ?

So, we are saving/restoring things twice, one time in X, the other in
the fbdev.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Etnus, makers of TotalView, The debugger 
for complex code. Debugging C/C++ programs can leave you feeling lost and 
disoriented. TotalView can help you find your way. Available on major UNIX 
and Linux platforms. Try it free. www.etnus.com