Future desktop on dumb frame buffers?
jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org
Mon Mar 21 12:56:05 PDT 2011
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:50:20 +0100
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert at linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 20:25, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:43 +0000
> > timofonic timofonic <timofonic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> So if KMS is so cool and provides many advantages over fbdev and
> >> such... Why isn't more widely used intead of still relying on fbdev?
> >> Why still using fbdev emulation (that is partial and somewhat broken,
> >> it seems) instead using KMS directly?
> > Used by what? All three major GPU device classes have KMS support
> > (Intel, ATI, and nVidia). If you want it for a particular device, you
> > can always port it over.
> The three major GPU device classes on PC...
Yes, good point. :)
> > As for fbdev emulation, what's still using it? There's nothing
> > stopping projects from converting over; X and Wayland can already
> > handle KMS APIs just fine.
> Can Wayland handle fbdev APIs ...
Yes. Fundamentally, the Wayland protocol just assumes a way to share
buffers between processes. For the software raster version of the Qt
port, Kristian created a shmem interface for doing that to allow the
results of CPU rendering to be passed around without copying. On an
embedded device that would be one way to go.
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
More information about the wayland-devel