Centralization of graphical awesomeness

Vasco Névoa vasco.nevoa at sapo.pt
Mon Oct 26 13:23:51 CET 2009

Downgrading to QVGA is something that should have been done a long time ago.
There's no point in trying to force a badly designed system.

How do we do it? Which files must be changed?

Citando Carsten Haitzler <raster at rasterman.com>:

> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:57:27 +0300 Evgeniy Karyakin  
> <anthropophagite at gmail.com>
> said:
>> 2009/10/26 Carsten Haitzler <raster at rasterman.com>:
>> > you want speed? you will need to give up something. if you still  
>> want it to
>> > look nice, then drop pixels. its the simplest and easiest  
>> solution. its the
>> > right resolution for that cpu anyway. the glamo will still hurt you, but
>> > not as much.
>>    I'm sure everybody who has any professional connections with
>> Freerunner+Glamo development already took all possible measures to
>> solve this problem. But what concrete steps were taken to ease Glamo
>> bottleneck? If its throughput is so narrow, can we lower amount of
> none. it's a hardware issue. you simply cant read or write to video  
> ram faster
> than that. andy tried timing stuff all that happened was instability from
> memory. glamo is most likely also the cause for the cpu runnig at 400 not
> 500mhz. the extra load on the memory bus (because glamo is hooked there
> externally providing another addressable chip) probably caused the  
> instability.
> remove it and there is a big change the cpu could run at 500mhz  
> instead of 400.
> it's rated to do 500. (yes power consumption would go up - but it'd  
> only be up
> while its on. when suspended it wont matter).
>> data flowing through it? There's one neighbor unanswered thread with a
> render on the device - and this will then limit what you can render.  
> evas can't
> be fully accelerated by the glamo. it has too many opretations. a bit like
> asking why quake4 is slow on a a voodoo2. it does much mroe than the old gfx
> chip ever was designed to do and you will hit software fallbacks. evas has
> multiple engnines. software (which is what is used - the 16bit renderer as
> opposed to the full 32bit one). it has xrender - if xrender were fully
> accelerated this should be better, but glamo cannot fully accelerate all the
> ops evas uses, so... it will rely on software fallbacks. thus slow  
> down. my bet
> is you'll end up same speed as the pure software engine, or worse. aftera
> bunch of hard work you'll have gone nowhere. evas also has a gl and gles2
> engine - but thats no use on glamo. it's gles1.1 and very limited  
> (from memory
> texture size is 256x256 which is pretty useless for 2d as most data you deal
> with breaks these bounds).
>> question on how to start the kernel with qvga resolution. Aside of
> no need to do that - just configure x for qgva. :)
>> this, what can be reduced, for example amount of available colours
>> (256 or even 16)? And if this [too] low throughput only of video
>> memory channel?
> 256 won't help. it increases complexity and really reduces display quality
> through the floor. the best best is qvga 16bpp. its simple. it  
> doesn't require
> any hard work. it is actually the most common resolution for most phones and
> devices out there so the software is more portable if you work on that (and
> then higher). but... in the past everyone has moaned and complained  
> and refused
> to use it, and insisted on their vga resolution... and then complained about
> speed.
> if people don't believe me that the gta02 is just plain a "bad bit of
> hardware and you have few choices" here's some examples. here'es an ooold efl
> demo app i did:
> http://www.rasterman.com/files/eem.avi
> and here it is on a 206mhz ipaq 3660 with 64m ram and 16m flash,  
> qvga(240x320).
> it's from like 2001/2002 (from memory). its ancient. and watch it run evas:
> http://www.rasterman.com/files/eem-live.avi
> here is something i videoed today. it's an samsung s3c6410 at 667 mhz, 128m
> ram, and 800x480 (higher res than gta02):
> http://www.rasterman.com/files/ello-elementary-smartq5.mp4
> everywhere i look... theres much better hardware. if you look at  
> performance vs
> age of hardware (when it was released) gta02 is almost at the bottom of the
> pile. :( you simply have a bad piece of hardware if you want graphics
> performance. as soon as you acknowledge that and either downgrade the device
> resolution for example to bring it in line with its performance, or just use
> different hardware, the better life will be :)
> --
> ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
> The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)    raster at rasterman.com
> _______________________________________________
> Openmoko community mailing list
> community at lists.openmoko.org
> http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

More information about the community mailing list