Re: GGI Project Unhappy On Linux

Jon M. Taylor (taylorj@ecs.csus.edu)
Thu, 26 Mar 1998 10:07:16 -0800 (PST)


On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Riley Williams wrote:

> Hi Albert.

[snip]

> >> b) VESA is a DOS-only thing and WE (i.e. THEM) don't need it.
>
> > On most cards, VESA is provided by a DOS TSR. Do you really
> > want to put DOSEMU in the kernel?
>
> Six of my last seven video cards provided native VESA support
> without any driver being loaded, so I'd have to consider that a
> very weak excuse that doesn't bear up to even the flimsiest
> scrutiny...

VESA 2.0 or 1.0? Virtually every SVGA card supports VESA 1.0 in
ROM, but that is a real-mode BIOS. AFAIK relatively few cards support
VESA 2.0 in ROM, which is where the whole DOS TSR thing came in.

The idea of a generic VESA 1.0 video driver has been kicked around
the GGI mailing list a few times in the past as a quick 'n dirty way of
giving virtually every card at least dumb framebuffer support. The
problems with this concept is that VESA 1.0 is real-mode. A driver that
suppored it would basically have to open a vm86() box upon initialization
and keep it open as long as the driver module was loaded. Not exactly
fast or elegant, but it might work.

Jon

---
'Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in 
becoming one with God.'
	- Scientist G. Richard Seed

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu