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
-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
-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: firstname.lastname@example.org ?) in order not to flood
directfb-dev with tons of post related to bugreports like this one ?
waiting for feedback..