From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Antonino A. Daplas" Subject: Re: [RFC] Does fbdev need a cursor API for userland? Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 05:34:26 +0800 Sender: linux-fbdev-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <200410190534.26894.adaplas@hotpop.com> References: <200410172347.15516.adaplas@hotpop.com> <200410190456.32643.adaplas@hotpop.com> Reply-To: linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.12] helo=sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1CJf4v-0001Vq-QW for linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:30:05 -0700 Received: from smtp-out.hotpop.com ([38.113.3.51]) by sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CJf4v-00078N-61 for linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:30:05 -0700 Received: from hotpop.com (kubrick.hotpop.com [38.113.3.103]) by smtp-out.hotpop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5ABB572B99 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:28:07 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Errors-To: linux-fbdev-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Linux Frame Buffer Device Development , Jon Smirl On Tuesday 19 October 2004 05:00, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Antonino A. Daplas wrote: > > On Monday 18 October 2004 20:01, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Antonino A. Daplas wrote: > > > > On Monday 18 October 2004 17:35, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Antonino A. Daplas wrote: > > I didn't intend it to do conversions. 32-bit ARGB would be used for > truecolor visuals only. > > > Isn't it much simpler to just have a set_image() where the source block > > is in the same format as the framebuffer so it doesn't have to do format > > conversions? > > Yes it is. > > The fb_imageblit() approach is just more generic, and could (in theory) be > used from user space as well, allowing applications to not have to care > about the actual frame buffer format anymore. All they have to handle is > 1-bit monochrome, 8-bit pseudocolor and 32-bit ARGB truecolor. > We still have to do conversions, say from 32-bit ARGB to RGB565. And this is just for truecolor. How about directcolor? Tony ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl