Re: also frustrated with the framebuffer and your matrox-card in

[James Simmons]

> It's rather annoying that in a feature-freeze period a change goes in
> that cripples the one framebuffer with the best speed and features -
> the matrox framebuffer. 

Because a driver has over 10,000 lines of code does not mean it is a 
quality driver.

> The author mentioned it could be weeks or months
> before he would be able to get his matrox framebuffer working with the
> new framework, since its simple API doesn't fit the possibilities of the
> matrox framebuffer. Read more about it on the fbdev-users or
> fbdev-developers mailinglist on sourceforge.

Petr is expressing his political view. It has nothing to do with technical 
arguments. In fact I place a bet. I will port the matrox driver and it 
will have the same functionality as the previous driver except for text 
mode support. If I can't do it I will not only revert the changes but I 
will give Petr his wetdream. I will start inetergrating vt.c and 
vt_ioctl.c into each fbdev driver. Each fbdev driver will be its own 
console system. We will not longer need vt.c and vt_ioctl.c as each driver 
will have its own version intergated into the driver. Sound fair?