RE: [Linux-fbdev-devel] re: James's new API post

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

> I agree that EDID needs to be supported, but the data structures could
> be a slight superset of EDID. All the matters is that the information
> isn't lost. EDID is certainly a good example of what needs to be
> represented by whatever the final data structure is.

Agree. I just want to make sure we can support platforms with their own
vanilla thing. You just never know.

> I also advocate the ability to populate the EDID data structure from
> user-space, which _could_ include a specific set of timings. 

That was what fbmon.c was supposed to do. Never got around to it. Now that
2.5.X is here we can start banging away at it.

> Why would I want to make a human readable interface? 

Because linus wants ioctls to go away in 2.5.X. 

> Most high end features are going to
> remain device specific and should only be used via a userspace library.

No doubt about that. I have only ever advocated resource management
between processes, not programming hardware in the kernel. Hm. I don't
know how Linus expects me to figure out a ASCII only interface to graphics
hardware. Anyways that is way down the road.