|
From: Sven L. <lu...@dp...> - 2003-03-06 09:01:58
|
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 09:33:34AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, James Simmons wrote: > > > > We should split the monitor programing stuff out from stuff like bpp etc. > > > > Now if you think about it we can do things like change the bpp without > > > > having to redo the monitor programming. This is the flaw with the old and > > > > even the new api. > > > > > > You could have done that from the beginning. Just look at which fields have > > > changed and which haven't. > > > > I should of but didn't because I knew driver would take teh path of lest > > resistance to port there drivers. TO much change would have made the > > current situtation much much worst. > > One other reason why this isn't done is because X may interfere with it. If we > don't do a full register update, but change the parts that need a change only, > we will see less flickering (no PLL reprogramming), but we will suffer if X > doesn't restore the registers to the exact same values they were before. X is supposed to do that, even if it doesn't know anything about fbdevs, maybe especially if it doesn't know anything about fbdevs. If it knows about fbdev and uses it, X should not be touching the modes anyway, right ? So, we are saving/restoring things twice, one time in X, the other in the fbdev. Friendly, Sven Luther |