On Wednesday 24 May 2006 04:21, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On 5/23/06, D. Hazelton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 2) The ROM support in the kernel knows about the shadow RAM copy at
> > > C000::0. When you request the ROM from a laptop video system it
> > > returns a map to the shadow RAM copy, not to a physical ROM. You need
> > > access to the shadow RAM copy to get to things the BIOS left there
> > > when it ran.
> >
> > Of course. But then there are people who do stupid things like telling
> > the BIOS not to provide a shadow copy of the ROM. However that isn't a
> > big problem and those people should have their hardware properly
> > configured in the first place...
>
> Every recent system I've turned the shadow copy off on won't boot any more.
>
> > Okay. This is good - exactly what I was thinking would be done anyway.
> > What about cards like the Radeon's with two CRTC's that can run
> > multi-headed off a single card?
> >
> > Apparently the card is booted properly by the BIOS, but the second head
> > (either the VGA port, the Composite/TV Out or the DVI) isn't setup
> > properly by the BIOS because, apparently, the ROM can't detect the
> > properties of the second head in some situations.
>
> That is a card specific problem that needs to be addressed in the
> driver for the card. As long as the ROM is run the hardware will
> correctly respond to commands asking it about the secondary heads.
Okay, I'll shelve this for a second or third step in the devel then - as some
of the heads - notably the composite and s-video out - can't provide EDID or
DDC information.
> > However, for situations like that it might be best to have the API open
> > so that userspace tools can be used to set those secondary outputs.
> >
> > > When running the ROMs you will need to add code to manage the active
> > > VGA device since both adapters will try and turn it on when their ROMs
> > > are run.
> >
> > Okay. This has me beat - any suggestions on how to manage it?
>
> Don't worry about multiple cards in a single system yet.
>
> > > You will also need to provide a mechanism to call out to userspace.
> > > The userspace program will use vm86 or emu86 to run the ROM image.
> >
> > Yes - problem is that I have not been able to find any decent information
> > on vm86/emu86 in order to capitalize on the system call. Might be better
> > to have some people specifically working on the userspace stuff while
> > others focuse on the in-kernel stuff.
>
> BenH has source for a working emu86. I would wait on that project
> until klibc has been merged.
Okay.
However, I'd assume that the person writing emu86 (BenH) would provide some
support and documentation for it.
vm86 is a whole different beast. I've been through every document on it that I
can find and still don't understand how to use it properly.
> > One problem is that Mesa is strictly OpenGL, so this would mean there
> > would have to be a second library for the 2D stuff. Potential contenders
> > for this are abundant, including one windowing system that actually,
> > IIRC, is distributed as a kernel patch/module. I would love to leave the
> > 2D stuff completely up to userspace, but all modern video cards contain
> > acceleration for 2D drawing, so it would probably be best to include that
> > in any userspace side of the system.
>
> OpenGL is perfectly capable of doing 2D drawing as well as 3D. Check
> out the profile option of OpenGL/ES. It has been proposed before to
> chop mesa down into a smaller OpenGL/ES profile for system where space
> is at a premium. There is a commercial minimum profile OpenGL/ES
> implementation that fits in 100K.
Okay. What I was thinking is that by providing a 2D and 3D API the cards that
people might have that lack 3D acceleration capabilities could still do
accelerated graphics in the 2D sense. This would be best done, IMHO, through
a dedicated 2D acceleration API.
However, I also have taken to heart the admonition that the kernel should
provide a minimal API and the rest should be in userspace. So, technically,
the 2D drawing API could use OpenGL itself and the hardware would see the
proper commands as filtered through it's userspace side driver.
> I would leave accelerated 2D alone to begin with and I would remove
> the fbdev 2D acceleration from any fbdev drivers that you merge. The
> fbdev acceleration code conflicts with the DRM code. If you ask me,
> there should be no in kernel access to acceleration of any kind.
> Anything wanting acceleration would need to ask for it from user
> space. More details on consoles and acceleration are in:
> http://jonsmirl.googlepages.com/graphics.html
Thank you!
> Merging and fixing the kernel graphics subsystem is a gigantic
> project. My strategy would be to split it up into small steps and get
> one step accepted at a time. Don't start writing code for the next
> step until the first one is accepted. The number of changes you will
> get on the first step will invalidate anything you do on the second
> step.
This is how I work anyway.
> A good first project would be to start building a set of user space
> apps for doing the mode setting on each card. All of the code for
> doing this exists in the X server but it is a pain to extract. X has
> 1000s of internal APIs and typedefs. You would end up with a set of
> apps that would be able to list the valid modes on each head and then
> set them. The code for achieving this is all over the map, sometimes
> we know everything needed like for the Radeon, sometimes you need to
> make a VM86 call to the BIOS to get the info (Intel). Load an fbdev
> driver and check out the current support for this in sysfs.
Actually I had planned to do something much larger. I had planned to implement
a framebuffer driver for my current video card using the latest stable kernel
release and the latest DRM sources. This way I'll have a basis for porting
the other existing framebuffer drivers over, which will save me a lot of
time.
I had planned on actually exporting the full, probed capabilities of the
devices to userspace via sysfs, though I don't know if there is a good way to
export full DDC or EDID information. Perhaps that should go somewhere
in /proc? (I know, the kernel is moving away from information in /proc but
the sysfs "single setting per file" would mean a lot of files to contain all
the potential information)
And as you note, licensing is an issue. However, as the kernel is GPL I might
use DRM as an information source and write that code over again to sidestep
any licensing issues. (I really don't want to piss off the MIT or BSD people)
DRH
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
