From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <19990120133404.F2459@maxime.u-strasbg.fr> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 13:34:04 +0100 From: Sven LUTHER To: Geert Uytterhoeven , luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr Cc: Michel Daenzer , nardinoc@CS.UniBO.IT, Linux/APUS , Linux/PPC Development , Linux Frame Buffer Device Development Subject: Re: [pm2fb] update 990110 - first public release ;) Reply-To: luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr References: <19990120120240.B2072@maxime.u-strasbg.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from Geert Uytterhoeven on Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 01:17:16PM +0100 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 01:17:16PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Sven LUTHER wrote: > > but then since i first booted in this mode, the bottom line of the > > screen don't get erased anymore, very anoying, particularly > > because it worked fine before. > > I guess a problem with the clear_margins routine? > > > also, Ilario and Geert, am i right in thinking that the pm2fb > > initialize the permedia2 chip correclty, and that, when trying to > > accelerate X i could use it directly, without having to do > > initialization. > > Yes. The X server must not do video mode initialization, but call the frame > buffer device instead. > > > also there is a whole part missing in the xfree pm2 accel servers, > > so i don't know if it would be a good idea to use them. > > > > Ilario, you released the pm2 includes uinder the GPL to go into > > the kernel, is it ok to put them also in X ? > > I don't think that's a good idea: we want to be _integrated_ with XFree86, not > diverge from them. So IMHO we should use the XFree86 include definitions for > Permedia2. Yes, ... i guess you are right, ... but half the stuff from hw/xfree86/accel/glint is missing, i am not even sure you can build an accelerated server from the 3.3.3.1 source, i asked on the xfree-glint list, but got no response yet, so ... > > BTW, Gerd Knorr added fbdev support to XF86_SVGA. Currently it supports Matrox > only (or no accel on other boards) in fbdev mode, but it's a good start. > Starting from that is probably the best way to have as much acceleration > support as possible. The unified XFree86 4.0 will be much more similar to the > current XF86_SVGA than to the other current accelerated servers like > XF86_{Mach64,S3,S3V}. Adding more accel code to XF68_FBDev is a waste of time. > > Yes, I really should try to get XF86_SVGA working on my CHRP box. Once we have > it working for one chipset, the others should follow soon. XF86_SVGA does > support not only Permedia2, but also ATI Mach64, S3 Trio64 and S3 ViRGE. > > The only things lacking in a fbdev'ed XF86_SVGA for us are the missing support > for Amiga and Atari bitplanes. > > XF86_SVGA has another advantages for PPC: since it works on the `plain' > chipset, too, we can have a unified X server that uses fbdev where available, > and bangs the hardware completely where not (e.g. the PPC PReP boxes with S3 or > Cirrus Logic). > > Sven: I'll forward Gerd's patches. Does that mean that i could build a XF86_SVGA server that will work on with my bvision ? but it still don't solve the problem of the missing glint stuff. and playing with my stuff, will permit me to experiment, and later i can merge with the other stuff, or maybee 4.0 (for when it is scheduled ?) Friendly, Sven LUTHER [[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]] [[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to Cc linuxppc-dev if your ]] [[ reply is of general interest. To unsubscribe from linuxppc-dev, send ]] [[ the message 'unsubscribe' to linuxppc-dev-request@lists.linuxppc.org ]]