On 14.03.2010 19:01, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: >> You may want to look at directfb instead of working with the >> framebuffer directly. > > That is actually what I was going to look at first. As far as I > understand DirectFB is bit higher level than /dev/fb directly, so > should make implementation a bit easier.
It's not only on a much higher level, but it also provides hardware-acceleration where drivers are available. On low-end embedded devices this can be crucial for acceptable performance. As for the level, I'd say using DFB is sort of on a par with using Xlib, only easier to handle. Besides the init procedures it acatually feels more like using SDL, but with richer functionality. You even get native support for windowing, multi-application support, etc. It's definitely much more comfortable than /dev/fb! I'm maintaining FPC-bindings for DFB. Right now, they work with the 1.4 line of DFB binaries only. If anyone has a need for 1.2 bindings (which is the version that ships with most GNU/Linux distributions these days), I'd actually provide such bindings. So, if anyone is seriously interested, please come forward. Cheers Roland _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
