Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965194AbWEYXs5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 May 2006 19:48:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965193AbWEYXs5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 May 2006 19:48:57 -0400 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.195]:3040 "EHLO nz-out-0102.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965194AbWEYXs4 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 May 2006 19:48:56 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=TqtQ1OtJVvLUdynGfUCzTcupb+rwEns2HSxZ6D/0Ozzjs67maYcMK+W6UGQv9qIJQBJSTjVBraoH7dsLlwpyauPElLcsyEzkNSjAOAGa4zAAcSHaVjzE9vKitetRZDkieO2705X9WRj/p7lwQImq60ExIJsPQhDokJHkIm4PcrE= Message-ID: <9e4733910605251648l956a777s781f489d5b4f558f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 19:48:55 -0400 From: "Jon Smirl" To: "Jeff Garzik" Subject: Re: OpenGL-based framebuffer concepts Cc: "D. Hazelton" , "Dave Airlie" , "Alan Cox" , "Kyle Moffett" , "Manu Abraham" , "linux cbon" , "Helge Hafting" , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <44763B8E.3050200@garzik.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060519224056.37429.qmail@web26611.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <9e4733910605241656r6a88b5d3hda8c8a4e72edc193@mail.gmail.com> <4475007F.7020403@garzik.org> <200605250237.20644.dhazelton@enter.net> <44756E70.9020207@garzik.org> <9e4733910605250704m68235d88lcd8eaedfda5e63cf@mail.gmail.com> <4475C845.5000801@garzik.org> <9e4733910605250837u59ad3881s75a0ed366fa2eefb@mail.gmail.com> <44763B8E.3050200@garzik.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1281 Lines: 28 On 5/25/06, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > There is significant architectural difference between the two schemes. > > Is the base driver an absolute minimal driver that only serves as a > > switch to route into the other drivers, or does the base driver > > contain all the common code? I'm in the common code camp, DaveA is in > > the minimal switch camp. > > You are missing that both are the same camp. It's just different paths > to get to the same destination. Common code will inevitably result. Given that there are 60 fbdev drivers and only 7 DRM drivers. It sure looks easier to me to declare the fbdev drivers as being the base driver. But if you want to spend the time needed to split up 60 fbdev drivers, go ahead. But one thing I do not want to see is only splitting the 7 fbdev drivers that correspond to the DRM ones. The net effect of that will be to create two different fbdev architectures. If you're going to split fbdev you have to make the same split to all of them. -- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@gmail.com - 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/