Graphics Performance

Iain B. FIndleton ifindleton at
Fri Apr 3 14:25:35 CEST 2009

In my case, the apps I use need space on the screen for buttons, etc 
that control the things being done. My typical layout is to use 460 x 
570 for the actual application display, the rest for decorations and 
controls. Under these conditions, 512 x 512 would be fine, even if I had 
to cut the display by a few lines.

Even the 2D accelerations items would probably make things much better 
as I do my own conversion from 3D to 2D.

Are there any instructions as to how to get the xorg driver running? I 
currently use whatever came with the phone run time images

Thomas White wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:17:42 -0400
> "Iain B. FIndleton" <ifindleton at> wrote:
>> A significant issue for me is the performance of the graphics display
>> on the FR. I recall some discussions a while back about making use of
>> the XGlamo acceleration features. Has any progress been made here? It 
>> appears to me that the graphics performance on the FR is poor
>> compared to, for instance, the iPhone or iTouch, both of which have
>> slower CPUs. When applications running on the FR have their X output
>> routed to a machine with accelerated graphics, it is apparent that
>> the FR processor can deliver the X events fast enough, but the FR
>> graphics chip interface can't keep up.
> [I wrote this before the other replies came through, so it re-covers a
> bit of ground.]
> We do have some acceleration already - both XGlamo (the Kdrive X server)
> and xf86-video-glamo (the Glamo driver for Xorg) make use of Glamo's 2D
> engine to accelerate tasks such as flood-filling large areas and moving
> blocks of data around the screen or onto the screen from offscreen.
> However, I do agree that we can do a lot more.  So far, we've
> concentrated on trying to implement conventional acceleration protocols
> while being limited by what Glamo can't do.  Instead, I think we should
> look at what the little chip CAN do, and really make it work, HARD, for
> us.  Particularly its 3D engine.  With that, we could do things like
> (dare I say it, iPhone-style) flying launcher icons, or alpha-blended
> overlays, or other things I can't even imagine right now...
> There are many limitations of the chip, but I don't see them as a
> reason to give up on this kind of thing.  For example, it's often
> mentioned that the 3D engine won't render to a buffer larger than
> 511x511 pixels.  That would seem to rule out such graphical fanciness
> at the native resolution of 480x640, but how about we just cover a
> 480x511 region of the screen with accelerated graphics and make the
> remaining area into some kind of tool or status bar?  Maximum texture
> size of 256x256?  Then design the UI so that the accelerated parts of
> the UI split into blocks of that size or less.  And so on.
> I see more potential in working 3D acceleration than just Quake, and
> I'm not in the least bit put off by the knowledge that the chip is a
> "one-off"...
> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> Openmoko community mailing list
> community at

More information about the community mailing list