Messages in this thread | | | From | "D. Hazelton" <> | Subject | Re: OpenGL-based framebuffer concepts | Date | Tue, 23 May 2006 23:31:03 +0000 |
| |
On Tuesday 23 May 2006 16:53, Alan Cox wrote: > On Maw, 2006-05-23 at 11:41 -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote: > > So a modern GPU is essentially a proprietary CPU with an obscure > > instruction set and lots of specialized texel hardware? Given the > > total lack of documentation from either ATI or NVidia about such > > cards I'd guess it's impossible for Linux to provide any kind of > > reasonable 3d engine for that kind of environment, and it might be > > better to target a design like the Open Graphics Project is working > > to provide. > > Its typically a device you feed a series of fairly low level rendering > commands to sometimes including instructions (eg shaders). DRI provides > an interface that is chip dependant but typically looks like > > > [User provided command buffer] > > [Kernel filtering/DMA interface] > > [Card command queue processing] > > > All the higher level graphic work is done in the 3D client itself.
Exactly! Alans above explanation is exactly why I proposed merging DRM with the framebuffer drivers. However, a day later and some new information received, it would be better to change the framebuffer system to use DRM as a backend where it's possible.
DRH - 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/
| |