Direct hardware bashing modules (int10 et al) and recent hardware

[Adam Jackson]

On Fri, 2015-11-20 at 12:39 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:

> > The tslib question is really what do we do with kdrive.  Xfake seems
> > pretty useless given Xvfb, and the only win for Xfbdev over Xorg+fbdev
> > is marginally smaller footprint.  On the other hand Xephyr is a hugely
> > important tool, but tslib support in Xephyr doesn't make a lot of
> > sense.  Personally I'd like to see the first two removed and tslib
> > support dropped.
> > 
> By the "first two" you mean Xfake and Xfbdev, leaving tslib-less
> Xephyr around. Is that correct ?

Correct.

I seem to have first tried to nuke Xfbdev in 2010, to some protest:

http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2010-February/005522.html

Then Jeremy tried again in 2012 and some additional resistance was
found:

http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2012-March/030068.html

I think what's needed there is to ensure fbdev_drv.so works as well as
Xfbdev in terms of bugs etc., and then to compare runtime footprint and
performance.

Also in 2010 I tried to remove tslib, and there was some concern about
evdev being equivalent for device support:

http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2010-July/011001.html

It does seem to be still used by _somebody_, as there are modestly
active forks on github:

https://github.com/kergoth/tslib

Again, probably the burden here would be demonstrating that evdev (or
libinput) can do the job just as well.

- ajax