From: James A Simmons <jsimmons@acsu.buffalo.edu>
  To  : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
  Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:52:12 -0400 (EDT)

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

On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, teunis wrote:

> 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.

Yes. Steffen place post or tell use where your API is. If we all look at
it it will develope alot faster.

> 
> Point made...
> 
> But actually this is prolly a good vector to introduce KGIcon:
> 	1. Get KGI api ironed-out  (and soon!)
Yes. Lets do it now!!!!!!. Please steffen post your API. I would like to
print it out and take it home with me.

> 	2. Make it so kgicon can be patched into kernel tree easily
This is almost already done. 

> 	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 :)

Pick the driver with the least bugs and not supported.