Subject: Re: X server

From: "Bill Halchin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:03:46 PST

On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 03:05:51PM -0800, Bill Halchin wrote:
>
> >     Is it possible to use code from the GGI project to solve the X
> > windows server problem (rather than using XFree86 code)??
>
>In theory yes.
>
>   Ralf

Ralf,

  What I am saying is why don't we try this approach.

Bill

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

---

From: Alan Cox <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 13:26:06 +0000 (GMT)

>   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 XFree

---

From: "William J. Earl" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 11:34:39 -0800 (PST)

> Actually  for an Indy X server your best model is still the 8514 driver in XFree

      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.

---

From: Ralf Baechle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 01:28:58 +0100

> 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.

  Ralf