> There is a problem with this, ...
> If we calculate the exact memory like this, there wont be any
> memory remapped to do double/tripple buffering...
> So the question is: shoud one take the formula and add ' * 2' to
> atleast get the double buffering supported...
> (in the patch I made for mdk, I kept a modified override part so that
> the user can change this, if he needs it....)
Hello. I realize that there won't be enough memory for double/triple
buffering using my patch. I even thought of doing the *2 thing, but
decided against it. The idea I had is that more and more video cards are
coming out with 128+ MB Ram, and that machines with >=1GB Ram are also
becoming common, especially for gamers etc... Those users, I believe,
are less likely to use vesafb for anything other than graphics boot
splash and this just removes one little out-of-the-box problem many have
been having. I thought it to be a safer default than attempting to
ioremap the entire framebuffer. Just my thoughts,
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 07 2003 - 22:00:26 EST