GGI offers what amounts to a superset of the functionality of the other two
approaches:
fbcon+userspace = KGI+LibGGI
The main practical difference is that LibGGI is a user library instead of a
trusted server (so the graphics operations don't need to span processes),
and KGI protects any security-sensitive aspects of the hardware.
If I remember correctly, KGI deals with the shared framebuffer by unmmapping
it for all the VTs but the active one, and I think the userspace end is
notified and is responsible for saving the state of the framebuffer if it
needs to (either that, or it at least provides a memory area for the
framebuffer to be saved in if it wants to -- I can't remember which) -- in
any case, I think the framebuffer is erased on VT switch...
> Another thing I wish people would get over is the misconception that
> kernel level video drivers are supposed to replace X. They only replace
> a part of the X server, that part which deals with the card directly.
> This would relieve the burden of supporting the video drivers inside the
> server from the XFree86 developers and will allow them more time to fix
> the outstanding bugs and implement better features.
Exactly.
-=MenTaLboY=-
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu