From: Andrew M. <ak...@li...> - 2009-09-05 23:02:03
|
On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 16:16:45 -0600 Jonathan Corbet <co...@lw...> wrote: > On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 20:43:52 +0000 > Florian Tobias Schandinat <Flo...@gm...> wrote: > > > This patch is a completly rewritten 2D engine. The engine is no longer > > in a default state but reinitialized every time to allow usage for both > > framebuffers regardless of their settings. > > The whole engine handling is concentrated in a big function which takes > > 16 parameters. > > Ouch, that's a lot of parameters. Might it be better to create a > structure to encapsulate all of those drawing parameters? I was wondering that. There's less advantage to that than usual because the call graph is not at all deep. > On a more general level: is anybody maintaining a tree for patches to > the viafb driver? -mm. > I'm going to be doing some work here (writing a > driver for the video capture engine), and there's patches sitting in > Harald's tree and the OLPC tree. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, that stuff doesn't exist. > It seems like a central merge point > might be a nice thing to have. > > I'd be happy to run such a tree. I'm really *not* qualified to be > passing judgment on patches to the framebuffer driver at this point, > though, so I'm not sure that I'm the best person for the job. Send 'em over. I haven't heard anything from the original viafb submitters for a long time. Hopefully Florian has time to help out with some review-n-test. |