RE: [Xen-devel] [RFC] Xen Virtual Framebuffer

["Petersson, Mats" <mats.petersson@xxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerd Knorr
> Sent: 06 December 2005 10:51
> To: Anthony Liguori
> Cc: xen-devel
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC] Xen Virtual Framebuffer
> 
> > I threw together a proof-of-concept over the weekend of a simple 
> > virtual framebuffer/keyboard/mouse.  The basic design is have a 
> > vmalloc()'d buffer in the guest exposed as /dev/fb0 and mmap()'d in 
> > dom0.  There's also a simple message system for 
> keyboard/mouse events.
> 
> Cool.
> 
> > Some interesting topics in this area are acceleration, whether we 
> > should implement our own X driver (or just enhance the fbdev driver 
> > since it uses no acceleration right now), and how to 
> properly expose 
> > it over something like VNC.
> 
> Hmm, I don't think acceleration is that important here.  2D 
> acceleration likely disappeares in graphics hardware soon.  
> I'd say a simple, stupid framebuffer for installs is 
> perfectly fine, for accelerated graphics its probably more 
> useful to skip 2D altogether and look at OpenGL 
> virtualization instead.

Actually, since I worked 2 years at a graphics chip manufacturer, doing
2D driver work, I would say that the "pure" 2D accelleration may well be
gone, but a lot of accelleration can still be had from using the 3D
engine to do 2D work... 

But then again, most 2D work is pretty quick even if you do it by pretty
simple means (memcpy-type operations), so yes, doing OpenGL/3D
accelleration would probably be more meaningfull. 

--
Mats
> 
> just my 2 cent,
> 
>    Gerd
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel