On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 17:02:59 -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:

> Okay, I have a concern this.  As far as I can tell, the cookie is passed
> to the driver, but I cannot see how the driver can make sense of it. 
> The cookie that wsdisplay passes seems to be a struct wsscreen, which is
> a private structure to wsdisplay(4) -- it is not declared in any
> external headers.
> 
> So how is a display driver (e.g. machfb, or more to the point, my
> radeonfb driver) supposed to use this member argument?  It doesn't
> look like you are using this from within any of the modified drivers
> (or at least the ones I looked at, p9100, amidisplaycc, machfb,
> vga.)
>
> The changes to wsdisplay(4) shed no light on this either.
> 
> Pass an opaque cookie is useless to the driver unless there is some way
> for the driver to do something meaningful with it.

What Garrett said.  If you want to identify a screen you need to pass
emulcookie, as wsdisplay does to show_screen &co.

Julio, can you *please* stop rushing unreviewed changes to wscons?

SY, Uwe
-- 
uwe@ptc.spbu.ru                         |       Zu Grunde kommen
http://snark.ptc.spbu.ru/~uwe/          |       Ist zu Grunde gehen