Re: Fwd: [PATCH 1/2] Framebuffer split

[Robert Millan]

On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 04:50:59PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> 2009/8/1 Robert Millan <address@hidden>:
> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:31:07PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko 
> > wrote:
> >> > Well, that fits the definition of backend.
> >> >
> >> But there are other backends too - network backend, opengl backend, ...
> >> Framebuffer is a term often used to designated memory ranged which is
> >> mapped to the screen.
> >
> > Ok then.  I think I got confused by the common usage of this term, which
> > often refers to the whole thing.  I'm fine with it, as long as it's used
> > consistently.
> 
> Yes, I can agree with "framebuffer" being used for the memory storing
> the display data, X has fb library, many other graphics libraries have
> bf handling routines but the most well known one is the Linux
> "framebuffer console" - the console using the Linux framebuffer
> library.
> 
> >
> >> May we stop discussing about names and rather either commit or discuss
> >> technical details?
> >
> > Names are very important.  When someone who's not familiar with the code
> > is trying to figure it out, if the name of a function or an interface
> > inmediately evokes an idea of what it does, that person won't have to
> > check.  It makes working with GRUB much more efficient.
> >
> 
> For me backend is just something generic that can do just about
> anything (even compilers have a backend) but framebuffer evokes the
> thought of rectangular memory area storing the picture shown on the
> screen.

I stand corrected.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."