Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] Future of Framebuffer

[James S. <jsi...@tr...>]

> IMO, DRM is best suited for this, except that DRM is currently only used by
> the DRI in X.  I would think this would be the way to go (instead of a new,
> clunky, IOCTL interface), but then the question becomes, do you want to
> duplicate all of the DRI work (since DRM is only concerned with the
> "basics", as it should be) for a fb interface?  Or would a fb-only
> interface independent of DRI (but still a Mesa backend) be better?

I have spoken about this before. I like to see both interfaces merge in
the future. Especially with the desire to move from traditional device
files to device filesystems. In the future their will be a graphics
frilesystem to replace the two. Well that is my dream. Of course their are
a few issues on design with DRI which I will not go into here.