[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [directfb-dev] Re: Bug#341597: [ppc, d-i-gtk] installation report on b&w G3

Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 12:50:19AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:


On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 10:18:40AM +0100, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote:

If the bug is fixed when hw-acceleration is disabled i think a good idea would be making the libdirectfb or the gtk-rootskel udeb containing anto /etc/directfbrc configuration file that contains

#prevents DFB from using hardware acceleration
#lets user dumping screen by pressing "Stamp" key

Mmm, Attilio, i don't think this file should be hardcoded like that, but
better provided by rootskel-gtk, or generated from rootskel-gtk at early
runtime, as we may wish to make it configurable from /proc/cmdline, and do
some more advanced matching depending on graphic card used or architecture, as
i proposed yesterday.

I think disabling hardware acceleration could be useful in many cases, so we should evaluate what's the best choiche among:

*Disablig hw accel by default inserting a static entry in /etc/directfbrc file provided by gtk-rootskel. -pro: simplest option, no per-videocard hw acceleration disabilitation mechanism required; for our purposes we do not need hw acceleration; reported bug like this could be easily imputable to DFB's unaccelerated video driver so that we culd easily know where to dig in the case of DFB crashes. -con: this would prevent further potential bugs in accelerated DFB drivers from being discovered.

*DFB HW accel enabled by default, disabled by default for known broken accelerated modes and user-disabilitable at boot-time using ad-hoc parameters. -pro: hw acceleration enabled by default would make the g-i a good test bench for DFB -con: per-card hw accel disabilitation mechanism has still to be developed; users may be disoriented by crashing installations if they do not know that DFB's hw acceleration can be disabled (remember that many oh whom betatested the g-i tought it was based on XFree! )

If we decide to keep the hw-acceleration enabled by default we'll need co-operation from directfb-dev, were bugreports related to DFB crashes that we may receive should be forwarded. As soon as the g-i is released it, and henche DFB, will receive a lot of testing from many users all around th world and this could be a good testbench for DFB too. Also, DFB will get a lot of exposure and yet undiscovered bugs may be found and solved: maybe a list dedicated to bugreporting could be needed for the DFB project (ex: bugs@directfb.org ?) in order not to flood directfb-dev with tons of post related to bugreports like this one ?

waiting for feedback..



Reply to: