Current CVS: static build broken?

[Adam Jackson]

On Saturday 15 January 2005 16:54, Roland Mainz wrote:
> Keith Packard wrote:
> > Around 19 o'clock on Jan 14, Roland Mainz wrote:
> > > What was the reason for writing a "xf1bpp" driver instead of using
> > > "mfb" ?
> >
> > I believe xf1bpp matches the old PC MGA bitmap format, which is something
> > like big-endian bits in little endian bytes.
>
> Is there anything else in the Xorg tree which supports this kind of
> cards or will the removal of "xf1bpp" effectively mean we're dropping
> support for these cards ?

xf1bpp is used only by the XFree86 DDX.  I did say earlier in the thread that 
xf1bpp users would be converted to use mfb, so we're not dropping support for 
anything.  However, I would wager that most of the low color depth support in 
the drivers - possibly excluding vga and vesa - has rotted.  1 and 4 bpp had 
been broken in trident since about xf4.2 with no one complaining.  This is 
not much of a loss; every driver that uses xf1bpp/mfb also supports depths 
>=8bpp, excluding sunbw2.  Pretty sure most users spend their time at 16bpp 
or above.

Also I'm not convinced that Keith's assessment is correct.  For one, sunbw2 
uses xf1bpp, I doubt it's an MGA card.  Secondly, I don't see any #define 
hints in the xf1bpp Imakefile indicating anything about endian weirdness.  
Experimentation would tell me for certain.

I suspect the motivation was to have a loadable monochrome framebuffer core 
without needing to touch the "upstream" mfb source.

- ajax
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20050115/f01240e4/attachment.pgp>