From: Ali G. R. <al...@ru...> - 2009-07-14 03:42:13
|
Dave Airlie <ai...@gm...> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Ali Gholami Rudi<al...@ru...> wrote: > > Arjan van de Ven <ar...@in...> wrote: > >> can we turn this around, is there a reason to add them? > >> or in other words, how / where would these be used ? > > > > User-space programs that use framebuffer directly can use them. I was > > writing a simple framebuffer virtual terminal (using libfreetype for > > fonts; like fbterm); scrolling and painting boxes would be faster if > > there was someway of using hardware accelerated operations. I think > > other similar programs can benefit, too. > > The general opinion is we should keep acceleration in userspace if at > all possible. I see. The line between user- and kernel-space for graphic applications is very blurred to me :-) > Not all hw can implement these usefully in the kernel, directfb AFAICT, many major ones like intelfb, radeonfb and nv implement them and those that can't, use a software implementation. You mean they are unreliable or that there is little performance improvement because of the way those operations are implemented in the kernel? > already does some > things for this. Sometime ago I did try running directfb on a radeon r300 and it failed. I didn't try hard to see what's wrong but I got the impression that userspace apps are not good at using the hardware directly. Ali |