> On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Phil Brutsche wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > I apologise for continuing the GGI thread, but...
> > >
> > > Could someone (Geert?) outline the main conceptual and actual differences
> > > between fbdev and KGI?
> > Essentially none. KGI and fbdev both provide frame buffers for user-level
> Right.
Good; that means I understand things right.
>
> `fbdev' needs low level chipset drivers too. Those are called `frame buffer
> devices'. There is no such thing as a `generic driver'. You may think `VGA is a
> generic driver'. Right, but chips without VGA text mode are not VGA compatible
> anyway.
>
> > bad thing is that I don't think that fbdev will know how to talk to every
> > single video adapter out there without chipset drivers.
>
> Of course `fbdev' can't talk to every single video adapter out there without
> chipset drivers! But you do _not_ need a chipset driver for every board to
> provide a text console: most (all on PC?) boards are VGA compatible and thus
> need the VGA text mode driver only. For graphics, you have X, which knows about
> every single video adapter (almost).
Then, essentially, kgi vs fbdev is a moot point (since they do the same
basic thing.) and the real sticking point to ggi is EvStack. Like Alan Cox
said, programmer's time would be better spent combining KGI and fbdev so
that there is a single, unified 'API' for graphics access.
> console.c (abstract console driver version)
> |
[snipped description]
Thanks - I've been 'enlightened' an can now debate ggi better!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Brutsche
"Be of stout heart, Number One. We've handled the Borg. We can
certainly handle Admiral Jellico." - Jean-Luc Picard
Help stop spam! Visit http://www.cauce.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu