From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265714AbUBBRI7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:08:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265740AbUBBRI7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:08:59 -0500 Received: from kinesis.swishmail.com ([209.10.110.86]:34821 "EHLO kinesis.swishmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265714AbUBBRI5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:08:57 -0500 Message-ID: <401E8536.5000805@techsource.com> Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 12:13:26 -0500 From: Timothy Miller MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Geert Uytterhoeven CC: John Bradford , chakkerz@optusnet.com.au, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [OT] Crazy idea: Design open-source graphics chip References: <4017F2C0.4020001@techsource.com> <200401291211.05461.chakkerz@optusnet.com.au> <40193136.4070607@techsource.com> <200401291629.i0TGTN7S001406@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> <40193A67.7080308@techsource.com> <200401291718.i0THIgbb001691@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> <4019472D.70604@techsource.com> <200401291855.i0TItHoU001867@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> <40195AE0.2010006@techsource.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Timothy Miller wrote: > >>Ok, so, how about this idea: >> >>- Small Xilinx FPGA, 16M of RAM, and a DAC on a board. >>- AGP 2X >>- Up to 2048x2048 resolution at 8, 16, and 32 bpp. >>- Acceleration ONLY for solid fills and bitblts on-screen. > > > Sounds OK to me. To you. But if you are the only customer, that doesn't make for very large sales volumes. > > >>Given that so little is accelerated, there is no point in putting more >>than the viewable framebuffer on the card, hense the 16 megs. It would >>probably actually HURT performance to cache pixmaps on the card. >> >> >>Oh, there's one thing I forgot. It would have to support VGA. There is >>a VGA core on opencores.org that we could use, but its logic area would >>probably push up the FPGA cost so that the board was in the $100 range. >> Probably more. > > > Why support legacy VGA? It makes things more complex and expensive, and doesn't > give us much, especially for a SoC. It's all about console support in a PC. BTW, What is SoC?