On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:50:20 +0100 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 20:25, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:43 +0000 > > timofonic timofonic <timofonic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> So if KMS is so cool and provides many advantages over fbdev and > >> such... Why isn't more widely used intead of still relying on fbdev? > >> Why still using fbdev emulation (that is partial and somewhat broken, > >> it seems) instead using KMS directly? > > > > Used by what? All three major GPU device classes have KMS support > > (Intel, ATI, and nVidia). If you want it for a particular device, you > > can always port it over. > > The three major GPU device classes on PC... Yes, good point. :) > > As for fbdev emulation, what's still using it? There's nothing > > stopping projects from converting over; X and Wayland can already > > handle KMS APIs just fine. > > Can Wayland handle fbdev APIs ... Yes. Fundamentally, the Wayland protocol just assumes a way to share buffers between processes. For the software raster version of the Qt port, Kristian created a shmem interface for doing that to allow the results of CPU rendering to be passed around without copying. On an embedded device that would be one way to go. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
