Re: vesafb terminal for testing.

[Vladimir Serbinenko]

>I see four options here:
>
>1) design graphics drivers interface and register it when loading
>module. Pros is that it is easy to write new graphics drivers. Cons is
>that we need to have then virtual screen support (not hard to make).
>
>  
>
Perhaps the best way

>2) improve terminal interface. Cons for this are that terminal interface
>can grow quite large 
>
>and not all functions are relevant to terminal.
>  
>
Ir would be possible to add the terminal flag TERM_VIDEO_CAPABLE and
also write video part of module between #ifdef WITH_VIDEO and so compile
twice:
with video and without. Cons: last control for terminal rendering is on the
terminal driver, so even if they use some common functions like font
rendering there is
a risk that the terminals will be different with different video driver -
bad thing and in this way we must also have virtual screen support

>3) implement some generic code in kernel level. Pros is that it is
>easier to interface with it. 
>
Why?

>Cons are that kernel size increases.
>
>4) design some helper function interface that could be used to make
>dynamic function calls to module code. Cons are 'What happens then when
>module is unloaded?'.
>
>Perhaps there are other options ?
>
>  
>
We could do like terminal support, but separate

>Thanks,
>Vesa Jääskeläinen
>
>
>  
>
                                                                        
                                       Vladimir