Alternative approach for a nested-xserver based video driver
jamey at minilop.net
Wed Jun 4 09:56:16 PDT 2014
I'm almost entirely in support of this plan too :-) except I don't think
it will ever make sense to do things like video-nested or VNC as any
combination of video-modesetting and libinput.
But for everything else, yes, absolutely, throw that code away. :-)
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 12:19:41PM -0400, Jasper St. Pierre wrote:
> And on the other side, you have people like me who simply want to replace
> all video drivers with -modesetting, and all input drivers with libinput :)
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Jamey Sharp <jamey at minilop.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 09:07:22AM -0300, Laércio de Sousa wrote:
> > > Hello there!
> > >
> > > Some time ago I've wrotten asking for current status of xf86-video-nested
> > > development. I believe that, for a more robust single-card multiseat
> > setup
> > > with systemd-logind, a "real" Xorg server with some kind of nested video
> > > driver works better than Xephyr, since it still lacks proper input
> > > hotplugging, for example.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, xf86-video-nested have received no relevant
> > improvements
> > > for years, while Xephyr graphics support development is quite active.
> > Wow, I can't believe that capstone project was almost three years ago
> > already.
> > > So I'm thinking on rewriting xf86-video-nested driver based on latest
> > > Xephyr code. A more ambicious idea is to identify and move all video
> > > related code that could be useful for both Xephyr and nested driver to a
> > > shared library, namely "libephyr", and link them against it. We could
> > even
> > > rename xf86-video-nested to xf86-video-ephyr to reflect the new approach.
> > >
> > > I have absolutely no experience in writing video drivers for Xorg, but
> > I'm
> > > open for learning. Any feedback from you will be welcome.
> > In my opinion, this would be great. One of my long-term goals is to have
> > only one X server implementation that anyone cares about, so being able
> > to replace both Xnest and Xephyr with Xorg+video-ephyr sounds good to
> > me. (And ideally, Xdmx would die in a fire.)
> > If I had my way, you wouldn't need to build a shared library, because
> > you'd just replace Xephyr. But practicality suggests that your shared
> > library plan is a better migration strategy.
> > I might suggest that you try hacking stuff into video-nested by
> > copy-paste before you try to figure out what shared library API you
> > need, though. It's much easier to make progress through incrementally
> > testable changes.
> > I hope this helps. :-)
> > Jamey
> > _______________________________________________
> > xorg-devel at lists.x.org: X.Org development
> > Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
> > Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the xorg-devel