linuxconsole-dev

ANNOUNCE ATI 128 port of new api

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

I just finished and tested the ATI 128 driver for the ruby tree which uses
the new fbdev api. Works like a charm. No acceleration tho. I will add
that in later. Please give it a try. Also use it as a example for porting
other drivers. 

Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] ANNOUNCE ATI 128 port of new api

[Ani J. <aj...@sh...>]

Hi James,

I think this may be a good time to bring this topic up.  I am curious if
this new "ruby" tree and new fbdev api are going to be blanket accepted
into the 2.5 tree?  If so, is this the decision of a few or a generalized
vote of many fbdev driver maitniners (I have been in and out of
linux-fbdev lists so if there was some sort of general acceptance please
let me know)?  Also, I maintain the aty128fb driver and while I
appreciated the help with the driver, will this new api or whatever
changes in the "ruby" tree go over the heads of driver maintainers and go
into 2.5 without their knowledge?  Perhaps I'm being anal about it, but
I'd like to know about changes (if they go into the official kernel) to
the drivers I maintain, it makes life easier for patches and updates and
version control, as I'm sure other driver maintainers will agree.

From what I hear the long awaited 2.5 is around the corner so I think its
best to discuss this asap.


Thanks,

ani


On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, James Simmons wrote:

>
> I just finished and tested the ATI 128 driver for the ruby tree which uses
> the new fbdev api. Works like a charm. No acceleration tho. I will add
> that in later. Please give it a try. Also use it as a example for porting
> other drivers.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-fbdev-devel mailing list
> Lin...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-fbdev-devel
>

Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] ANNOUNCE ATI 128 port of new api

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

> I think this may be a good time to bring this topic up.  I am curious if
> this new "ruby" tree and new fbdev api are going to be blanket accepted
> into the 2.5 tree?  

The api has been discuss many times before on this list. In fact part of
the new api did go in. Its just not to many people take advantage of it.
Others like Russell King have used it. I have also talked to embedded
developers for mips and sh devices, many which have written framebuffers,
and they also support it. 

> If so, is this the decision of a few or a generalized
> vote of many fbdev driver maitniners (I have been in and out of
> linux-fbdev lists so if there was some sort of general acceptance please
> let me know)?  

Only one person that I know of doesn't support it. Everyone else who has
seen and responded to the proposal has accepted it. I have posted several
times the proposed api and I have gotten feedback which I have used to
shape the api. Yes some people haven't bothered in any way. As 2.5.X
approachs I hope they do. 

> Also, I maintain the aty128fb driver and while I
> appreciated the help with the driver, will this new api or whatever
> changes in the "ruby" tree go over the heads of driver maintainers and go
> into 2.5 without their knowledge? Perhaps I'm being anal about it, but
> I'd like to know about changes (if they go into the official kernel) to
> the drivers I maintain, it makes life easier for patches and updates and
> version control, as I'm sure other driver maintainers will agree.

I ported the driver because it was requested so testing for ruby can be
done on the PPC. Several drivers have been ported for testing. I have NOT
sent any patches to the mainline tree nor would I send them except with
the authors permission. 

> >From what I hear the long awaited 2.5 is around the corner so I think its
> best to discuss this asap.

I agree. Which is why I have posted example code such as the new aty128
driver here and other code as well. I have had some feedback. Now with me
porting drivers over I hope to have more. 

Re: ANNOUNCE ATI 128 port of new api

[Franz S. <Fra...@la...>]

On Wednesday 21 November 2001 01:50, James Simmons wrote:
> I just finished and tested the ATI 128 driver for the ruby tree which uses
> the new fbdev api. Works like a charm. No acceleration tho. I will add
> that in later. Please give it a try. Also use it as a example for porting
> other drivers.

I removed some more old PPC cruft (COMPAT_XPMAC, vmode/cmode handling), but I 
cannot get it to boot, cause it crashes early with a corrupted video mode, so 
I cannot see anything.

Have you tried it without any other CONFIG_*_CONSOLE besides 
CONFIG_FRAMEBUFFER_CONSOLE?

Franz.

Re: ANNOUNCE ATI 128 port of new api

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

> > I just finished and tested the ATI 128 driver for the ruby tree which uses
> > the new fbdev api. Works like a charm. No acceleration tho. I will add
> > that in later. Please give it a try. Also use it as a example for porting
> > other drivers.
> 
> I removed some more old PPC cruft (COMPAT_XPMAC, vmode/cmode handling), but I 
> cannot get it to boot, cause it crashes early with a corrupted video mode, so 
> I cannot see anything.

Thanks for removing the crud. I tried the driver on my ix86 box and it
worked. The only difference is the macmode stuff. Try commenting that out
to see what happens. If it works then we have a bug with the mac mode
stuff.

> Have you tried it without any other CONFIG_*_CONSOLE besides 
> CONFIG_FRAMEBUFFER_CONSOLE?

Yes. VGAcon and MDAcon work fine. In fact I run my machine with mdacon and
fbcon at the same time, with mdacon as my VT console. This way if it oops
mdacon prints out what happens. Plus I can debug fbcon or a framebuffer
driver without any problems. 

Re: ANNOUNCE ATI 128 port of new api

[Franz S. <Fra...@la...>]

At 02:40 23.11.2001, James Simmons wrote:

> > > I just finished and tested the ATI 128 driver for the ruby tree which 
> uses
> > > the new fbdev api. Works like a charm. No acceleration tho. I will add
> > > that in later. Please give it a try. Also use it as a example for porting
> > > other drivers.
> >
> > I removed some more old PPC cruft (COMPAT_XPMAC, vmode/cmode handling), 
> but I
> > cannot get it to boot, cause it crashes early with a corrupted video 
> mode, so
> > I cannot see anything.
>
>Thanks for removing the crud. I tried the driver on my ix86 box and it
>worked. The only difference is the macmode stuff. Try commenting that out
>to see what happens. If it works then we have a bug with the mac mode
>stuff.

Already tried that, same problem.

> > Have you tried it without any other CONFIG_*_CONSOLE besides
> > CONFIG_FRAMEBUFFER_CONSOLE?
>
>Yes. VGAcon and MDAcon work fine. In fact I run my machine with mdacon and
>fbcon at the same time, with mdacon as my VT console. This way if it oops
>mdacon prints out what happens. Plus I can debug fbcon or a framebuffer
>driver without any problems.

I mean did you try with _only_ CONFIG_FRAMEBUFFER_CONSOLE and 
CONFIG_FB_ATY128 enabled? Cause that's the only choice I have. The screen 
looks like the console code and the chip disagree on the selected 
resolution and/or bpp, but I can't see anything obviously wrong in your 
changes.

Franz.