alex at ajkavanagh.co.uk
Tue Aug 5 13:55:39 CEST 2008
Andy Green wrote, On 05/08/08 11:05:
> Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> | sluggish and should be adequate given the task at hand. What is the deal
> | with Glamo? Do we have - or will we ever have - meaningful graphics
> | acceleration for the Freerunner, given that this Glamo appears to be
> | handicapped by a bus that is not only slow to start with, but also
> We didn't get to the end of meddling with the Glamo yet, but what we got
> is what we got so far. The biggest handicap by far for that chip is we
> can't share the documentation.
> If we could, I bet there are people who would jump in and do stuff like
> use one of the OpenRisc CPUs that are on the die to do all kinds of
> effects in local Glamo memory. There is quite a bit of firepower in
> there we don't have resources to get working internally that can help
> hide the weakness of the external bus interface.
That kind of sucks doesn't it. That there is a processor on the chip
that could do, say, scrolling independently of the main processor and we
aren't allowed to know how to do it. I'm sure it's a great chip, but if
we can't drive it in interesting ways:
a) it means that Glamo doesn't look very good.
b) developers will think that Glamo isn't very good and will ask for
Does this scenario work well for S Media?
More information about the community