|
From: Antonino D. <ad...@po...> - 2003-01-11 10:26:25
|
On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 17:47, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 07:58, Antonino Daplas wrote: > > On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 03:42, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > I second to this. It's useful to have an extra field in > > fb_var_screeninfo for drivers to play around. It's like an extension > > field and its main use is to expose a hardware capability which is > > uncommon enough to warrant generic support. It's meaning will vary from > > driver to driver. > > I don't fully agree here. While I agree a driver specific field might > be useful, I beleive the "flags" field should have defined meaning. > > > I also have a couple of things that come to mind (like switching from > > truecolor to directcolor and vice versa without rebooting). I currently > > use var->nonstd which is probably not the the right thing to do. > > For this too, defined flags would make sense as other driver might want > to implement the same capability, in which case we really want all of > them to do it the same way. > Well, yes of course, if a particular hardware feature is quite useful and common, then you need something definitive. But what I also want is another field which will serve as a private communication channel between userspace and driver. Adventurous users/testers can use them to turn a unique hardware feature on/off. This is similar to 'Tweak'ing utilities common in MS Windows. Tony |