> It's rather annoying that in a feature-freeze period a change goes in
> that cripples the one framebuffer with the best speed and features -
> the matrox framebuffer.
Because a driver has over 10,000 lines of code does not mean it is a
quality driver.
> The author mentioned it could be weeks or months
> before he would be able to get his matrox framebuffer working with the
> new framework, since its simple API doesn't fit the possibilities of the
> matrox framebuffer. Read more about it on the fbdev-users or
> fbdev-developers mailinglist on sourceforge.
Petr is expressing his political view. It has nothing to do with technical
arguments. In fact I place a bet. I will port the matrox driver and it
will have the same functionality as the previous driver except for text
mode support. If I can't do it I will not only revert the changes but I
will give Petr his wetdream. I will start inetergrating vt.c and
vt_ioctl.c into each fbdev driver. Each fbdev driver will be its own
console system. We will not longer need vt.c and vt_ioctl.c as each driver
will have its own version intergated into the driver. Sound fair?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.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 : Tue Dec 31 2002 - 22:00:09 EST