just a short comment on the illustrations...
Mode 1: (fixed width font required for viewing)
+------------------------------------------+ |+--------------------+ +-----------------+| || | | || || | | || || | | head 2 || || | | 1024x768 || || head 1 | | || || 1280x1024 | | || || | +-----------------+| || | | || | Virtual framebuffer| |+--------------------+ | +------------------------------------------+
bottom right part is not virtual, it is just
a true framebuffer memory region that is not feed to any RAM-DAC unit. virtual means more
sort of emulated or not really what it seems
to be. it makes only sens if you attribute the
"virtual" word to desktop or screen and thus
to the whole area, making up a virtual desktop
or virtual screen support in contrast to the
possibly much smaller true viewport areas.
in the view of the CPU and the GPU it is frambuffer, regardless how you can view it.
From a linguistic point of view, you're correct, of course.
Speaking in XFree internal terms: The word "virtual" is taken from the pScreen-structure, and there it is obviously used in the meaning "total framebuffer size" (regardless whether visible or not).
But for the sake of linguistic correctness, here is V1.1 of the illustration:
+------------------------------------------+ |+--------------------+ +-----------------+| || | | || || | | || || | | head 2 || || | | 1024x768 || || head 1 | | || || 1280x1024 | | || || | +-----------------+| || | | || | Total framebuffer | |+--------------------+ | +------------------------------------------+
However, I am still interested in how the binary NVidia driver solves this logical puzzle. (I have changed my own code in the meantime)
Thomas
-- Thomas Winischhofer Vienna/Austria thomas AT winischhofer DOT net *** http://www.winischhofer.net/ twini AT xfree86 DOT org
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
