Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262126AbUA3QzB (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:55:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262123AbUA3QzA (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:55:00 -0500 Received: from 34.mufa.noln.chcgil24.dsl.att.net ([12.100.181.34]:1263 "EHLO tabby.cats.internal") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261931AbUA3Qy4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:54:56 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="CP 1252" From: Jesse Pollard To: John Bradford , Timothy Miller Subject: Re: [OT] Crazy idea: Design open-source graphics chip Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:54:27 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] Cc: chakkerz@optusnet.com.au, Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <4017F2C0.4020001@techsource.com> <4019472D.70604@techsource.com> <200401291855.i0TItHoU001867@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <200401291855.i0TItHoU001867@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <04013010542700.32275@tabby> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3587 Lines: 86 On Thursday 29 January 2004 12:55, John Bradford wrote: > > > Well, the cost of fabricating depends on the device. I was basically > > > thinking of a 68000, an EPROM and a SIMM on a piece of stripboard, > > > some ribbon cable and a DB-25 connector. > > > > > > Maybe our goals are somewhat different :-) > > > > Very different. What you're describing is a dumb terminal. > > Hardly. It's nothing like a dumb terminal whatsoever. > > It's a simple framebuffer, possibly with line drawing, and box filling > capabilities. Nevertheless, it could be used as a general purpose X > display, for spreadsheets, simple to moderate wordprocessing, > (I.E. probably not DTP-like applications), status displays for various > systems, etc. > > So, it does have real world uses. Yes - but you want it: 1. to use the AGP to gain access to multiple offscreen pages 2. a DMA controler to copy the data 3. A simple emulation (either 8bit cpu based or better) of VGA/SVGA 4. room in the design for future processors. Really - future processors: 1. including multiple vector multiply processors 2. general purpose CPU for control 3. LOTS of memory. What you REALLY need to do (long term) is to move the entire X server into a graphics board (including Mesa/OpenGL/... but minus the network code, authentication, and resource database...). It is my understanding that a LOT of the effort at speed is lost by using a single threaded process to handle the graphics. With a multiple cpu (not necessarily SMP mind you) performing the graphics transformations, you have a single rendering output step (another case for multiple cpus - 1 cpu: entire pixel render, 2: each takes 1/2 display, 4 - 1/4 display...). And with multiple dual ported graphics memory (port to pixel rendering cpu, port to frame buffer) you end up wit a very fast graphics display. Limiting factor: it may be bigger than a single slot. It would likely resemble the old SGI type of rendering engine, which used multiple boards, multiple staging memory, and multiported display. BUT: it would be modular. Pay a little and you only get a frame buffer. Add a general CPU - you get a basic X server (with slow 3D, but likely faster than currently done by the host processor)-- and pay more. Add a geometry engine (ie a processor/memory for Mesa) you get faster 3D operations... Add multiple engines (each takes part of the display) you get speed... It would likely require one AGP, but two PCI slots; and like the SGI engines, an internal connection between the two boards. This would also allow the project to have price levels - a $20 AGP frame buffer wouldn't be bad at all (and not all that slow either...) Add $40 for a general CPU... with the benifit of offloading the major X functions... and still have the ability to use the AGP. (BTY - the AGP is bi-directional... you should be able to copy images from the framebuffer) Add $40 (might have to trade in the existing general CPU... so it could actually be ~$80) and you should get options for multiple geometry processors... at $10/20 each? Note - the costs shown for the last upgrade is very likely wrong. > > What I'm describing is a PC console graphics card that will let someone > > play Quake III at a reasonable framerate. > > > > Isn't that what most people want? Something like the above should do. > [snip] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/