Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: multifont?
From: Alexander Levin <al.le_at_gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:02:21 +0100
Jonathan Gordon wrote:
> So here is the question. Is there enough opposition to going about it
> this way (separate buffers for each font) that someone will put up
> their hand and do the work so its done properly? Or are we happy to
> have this "good enough" solution for the time being?
I'm not against separate buffers for each font. But I don't quite like
the fact that the main and, if present, the remote font are treated in a
special way (from the skin fonts).
I would rather see all fonts, except the inbuilt system font, as
absolutely equal at the firmware level. And I would eliminate static
font buffers from the firmware and rather allocate them at the app level
(where we have much more flexibility in where to take it from) and pass
it to the firmware functions as a parameter.
This way we would unify and simplify fonts at the firmware level. Also,
we would not waste space on targets which can potentially have remotes
in the case that they are not used.
The buffers for the "main UI" and "remote UI" (if separately specified)
can be allocated in the skin bufer as well. Why not?
As for the browsing "remote fonts": couldn't we do it through the
following dirty hack: before calling the font browser, save the current
"main font" setting to a temp variable, then call the browser, then copy
the new value of the "main font" to the "remote font" setting and then
restore the value of the "main font" setting.
Received on 2010-02-11