6.7.2. possible minor omission

Alexander E. Patrakov patrakov at gmail.com
Tue Jan 22 21:22:50 PST 2008

2008/1/23, Dan Nicholson <dbn.lists at gmail.com>:
> On Jan 22, 2008 11:29 AM, Matthew Burgess <matthew at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:21:22 -0600, Clyde Forrester <ccf3 at mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > I'm using the Live 6.3
> > > At 6.7.2. I noticed that the 'video' headers were included, but not
> > > mentioned.
> >
> > Thanks for the report, Clyde.  I notice that on my kernel,, only sisfb.h gets installed there.  As such, I wonder whether the installation of that header is actually a bug.  I know Dan and Bryan have some experience with the kernel and its headers.  Maybe they can shed some light, or get hold of an opinion from upstream?
> That's probably a gross overstatement of my experience with the kernel
> headers :)
> I believe sisfb.h is proper public API. I don't know who uses it
> (DirectFB shows up on Google code search), but that's been exported
> from the kernel pretty much since David Woodhouse added the
> headers_install stuff.

Does DirectFB compile at all in LFS-6.3 with all drivers included?

> Additionally, it appears 2.6.24 will have two more headers in there,
> uvesa.h and edid.h. So, I'd suspect the video/ headers are proper API
> for Linux and don't conflict with anything else, like glibc.

Linux-2.6.24 includes the new "uvesafb" framebuffer driver that needs
a userspace program to execute the BIOS and switch modes. In order for
this helper to understand the commands from the kernel, they should
use the same communication protocol defined in this uvesa.h header.
So, this header defines the API specific to this driver (to be used
only by this helper).

And EDID is a very general thing, needed to enumerate valid video
modes, so I would just expect it to be in the public API.

Alexander E. Patrakov

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list