> OK, so we are confronted with (loads of?) broken hardware outthere.
> We can't just ignore it, so we'll have to think up a solution to
> this problem.
>
> If GGI is a solution, why not use it (as a config option of course,
> it will eat to much memory on a 386sx/4mb used as a router).
> It might not be stable enough for mainstream use, so we could flag
> it with CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL instead...
As it stands now, the way GGI works is that there is a mini-driver used
at boot time which provides as much functionality as the current console
driver, and at about the same size. So if all you are using the machine
for is a VGA/EGA/MGA text console, then there is no speed/size penalty.
It is when you want to use graphic modes or more enhanced features when
you load the card specific driver module (which overloads the
mini-driver).
Keeping kernel size to a minimum is one of GGI's main goals.
> I for one would be interested in at least testing GGI (even though
> I don't have 'broken HW'...
>
> Rik.
--Brian Gerst