From: teunis <teunis@computersupportcentre.com>
  To  : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
  Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:12:06 -0700 (MST)

Re: kgicon -> linux-2.2 ideas (was Re: Makefile vote II)

On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Sengan Baring-Gould wrote:

> teunis wrote:
> 
[clip]
> > Why not pack up a KGI-install of a (working) set of MediaGX KGI/fbcon
> > drivers as a patch-set and send that in?  Why send the whole driver tree
> > in?
> >
> > (picking an example from a currently unsupported-in-linux (afaik) card :)
> 
> Thanks ;-)Actually Suse's Xfree is on the attack vector for this one.
> 
> > (It might not work.  From the list afaik the MediaGX drivers may still
> > need work I don't know as I don't have one)
> 
> A bit. But I think we need the KGI API to be set in stone before bothering
> Linus.

Point made...

But actually this is prolly a good vector to introduce KGIcon:
	1. Get KGI api ironed-out  (and soon!)
	2. Make it so kgicon can be patched into kernel tree easily
	3. Find a good driver and send that and -only- that driver as
	   a kernel-patch to Linus.

3 is the important bit.  Taking, say, the MediaGX driver - which should
have non-GGI-backed support and sending it in as a new fbcon driver should
sorta pave the way.  I suspect this will be a lot easier accepted than a
whole raft (driver-tree) of drivers that could be overwelming.  Then send
a new driver (or several) as soon as that one driver's both considered
tested and accepted :)

Be even more cool if the entire KGIcon package could be accepted into the
linux CVS project....  That's prolly a lot easier as Linus -does- have it
in against GGI (or used to anyways).  Mostly 'cause of all the religious
wars about graphics the GGI people useta have on linux-kernel before GGI
was formed elsewhere :)  [and a little after too - for, like, a year or so
:]  (I was one of those *sigh*.  Shoulda bought in right away :)

I shut up now :)  [think I've described this point to death anyways]

G'day, eh? :)
	- Teunis