>>> On 05.01.17 at 17:03, <andr2...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 01/05/2017 05:45 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 22.12.16 at 09:12, <andr2...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Other than that the primary thing I'm missing (as I think I've >> mentioned elsewhere already) is a rationale of why this new >> protocol is needed (and the existing xenfb one can't be extended). > "This protocol aims to provide a unified protocol which fits more > > sophisticated use-cases than a framebuffer device can handle. At the > moment basic functionality is supported with the intention to extend: > o multiple dynamically allocated/destroyed framebuffers > o buffers of arbitrary sizes > o better configuration options including multiple display support"
Well, that's all stuff you had spelled out in the accompanying mail, but that's all items which could be taken care of by a protocol extension too. > I tried to evaluate what would it be like to extend existing fbif... > It looks like having 2 different protocols in a single file. This is what I'd like you to expand on. > What is more fbif can be used together with displif running at the > same time, e.g. on Linux one provides framebuffer and another DRM And this is certainly a valid argument (which hence should be spelled out in the description). Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
