On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 11:34:39AM -0800, William J. Earl wrote:
> > > Ralf,
> > > What I am saying is why don't we try this approach.
> > "we". I have this cool idea - "You"
> > Actually for an Indy X server your best model is still the 8514 driver in
> That sounds right to me as well. The problem with fbcon or GGI
> is that the Indy graphics hardware does not have a CPU-addressable
> frame buffer. You can always fake one in main memory, and DMA any
> modified portions to the real frame buffer, but a naive implementation
> would use more memory bandwidth than is available and a clever
> implementation would incur a lot of VM overhead (and still use a lot
> of bandwidth). Starting from an X server designed for hardware without
> an addressable frame buffer is more appropriate.
As I remember GGI has been improved such that it also can handle things
like a 8514 or Newport card. That still doesn't invalidate other
reasons why GGI isn't such a good idea. That said, Alan's suggestion
is the right one.