Subject:
RE: Nano-X-0.5pre3
From:
Greg Haerr ####@####.####
Date:
21 May 1999 20:35:19 -0000
Message-Id: <01BEA396.F08FCB50.greg@censoft.com>
On Friday, May 21, 1999 2:09 PM, Alex Holden ####@####.#### wrote:
: On Fri, 21 May 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
: > The XOR drawing modes are supported in my 0.5pre1 release, which
: > includes a modified bogl library, for reference purposes. All the demos
: > work in that version.
:
: Only in the cfb8 driver, and in a way which doesn't scale all that well to
: support all of the different modes in all of the drawing functions. I
: started working on doing it again for the cfb8 driver before I found out
: about the generic cfb driver, which wants to be done in a different way
: again. It's not a lot of work though.
:
I agree that it'd be a good move to use the generalized variable
packed pixel drivers instead of the one I've been using. That means
we'd support 8, 16, 24 and 32 bpp in one driver.
: > I suggest that various versions of the bogl library be contained in the
: > pre* releases that are currently being worked on, especially since
: > we now have multiple driver writers, which is a good thing.
:
: I don't see why.
Only to keep the distribution completely working for those of
us that want to add more features, while the driver-development can
continue as well. Once everything works in a more generalized driver,
we can toss the earlier driver from the distribution. This is in line with
my request to have some stability in the features working.
:
: > As I have commented, I think that nano-X is going to have to have
: > it's own driver set, specific to it. If however, we use the great work
: > started by Ben and the bogl stuff, we could at least build
: > intermediate files that are able to be used by other folks as well.
:
: I'd prefer to keep bogl, and improve the capabilities of bogl in general.
: Hopefully Ben will be willing to include the improvements (such as some
: speed optimisations I've been thinking about, and the code to support
: different drawing modes) in the general Bogl release, rather than keeping
: our own version of it.
I was originally much in favor of using unmodified bogl libraries,
for obvious reasons. If we still can, let's do it. The nano-X architecture has
moved on and doesn't need a number of bogl entry points, though, so the
code size is currently larger than it needs to be. This was a concern of yours.
For example, the bogl kbd, pointer, and put routines are no longer used.
Another small issue is that the /dev/tty0 redraw stuff etc that's currently in srvmain.c
needs to be moved to driver level. I've got plans to move all this stuff, but haven't yet.
Greg
