nanogui: Truecolour, Pseudocolour
Subject:
RE: Truecolour, Pseudocolour
From:
Greg Haerr ####@####.####
Date:
21 May 1999 17:56:08 -0000
Message-Id: <01BEA380.B36BCB40.greg@censoft.com>
On Friday, May 21, 1999 5:11 AM, Alex Holden ####@####.#### wrote:
> I just came to add the readpixel() to the bogl-tcfb and bogl-pcfb drivers,
> and wondering whether I should make it a common function for both drivers
> in bogl-cfb.c or not, decided to compare the two files to see what the
> difference is in the way the two modes are handled. It turns out that
> apart from the naming differences, about 99% of the code is exactly the
> same. Is it planned to diverge the two further in future for optimisation
> reasons, or would it be a better idea to combine them into one driver?
>
Alex, I'm so glad you are doing this, because now you can understand
what I've been suggesting: we should think about keeping some *common*
source to these routines, and share them between all framebuffer drivers. Yes,
they may be a little bigger, but it sure beats re-implementing the same damn
thing over and over again, right?
My plan all along is to continue to abstract common code to more levels. I'm not
so worried about nano-X getting too big just yet, as much as getting the project
moving forward quickly, on multiple platforms and multiple screen devices. It's these
things that MUST be done first, in order to assure portability in the future without
alot of rehacking...
I've got a common planes driver now for dos, elks, and linux. I'd very much like
to see a common packed pixel driver as well. These drivers are above the
framebuffer level. They are common code and only use the framebuffer code to
get the mmap() screen pointer. Then we can use them on any OS that happens
to be running an EGA/VGA card...
What do you think?
Greg
