On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Nicholas Clark wrote: > Is this the reason why you were finding that my patch didn't seem to work? > (sorry, I forgot to say that I wasn't running in "default")
I'm totally guessing. This is based on a couple of off-hand thoughts having spent five minutes staring at the source; it's probably wrong. > My guess would be that the acornfb is the only driver that defaults > to setting a virtual resolution that differs from the physical. Well, yes, indeed. :-) My real question was why doesn't any other hardware operate in that fashion... > (in that there's no reason to do this for its own sake, and I'd suspect > that other architectures don't need to do this to improve performance for > fix sized text screens) I presume they construct the graphics from the VT100 information as necessary rather than keeping it costlily `cached' at all times. It /does/ seem a waste of memory, to be honest; I hope that every single console doesn't have a screen bank allocated. I shall check. c. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
