I agree. I think metamodes are kind of klunky, but I don't know what
a better solution would be off hand. Another thing about the proposed
solution is that in many drivers certain configurations are assumed,
which can be confusing in the screen setup. For instance in the radeon
driver, the DVI/lvds port is always primary.
What's the "primary"?
Since I can put the devices left-right or right-left, "primary" is IMHO only relevant for Xinerama and/or applications drawing fixed conclusions.
(And for the record: The SiS driver needs to treat CRT2 as some sort of "primary" as well, due to order-of-init reasons required by the hardware. CRT2 can be TV, LCD=DVI-D or VGA2=DVI-A. CRT1 can only be VGA. I also need to know all about the configuration for CRT2 before I can eg. calculate the maximum pixel clocks for CRT1, etc etc etc)
It might almost be a better idea to work the other way around. standardize the mergedfb backend stuff (pseudo-xinerama, metamode
parsing, pointermoded(), etc.) and then just standardize on options for
the drivers. Maybe instead of messing with the monitors in the screen
section, allow the user to specify them in the device section like Alan
mentioned earlier, something like:
option "crt2monitor" "Monitor1"
That is an alternative, indeed. And it would be much easier to implement since there is no "old version"-style and "new-version"-style XF86Config then (which I wouldn't know how to distinguish between).
The disadvantage is that you blast the chain of
/------------ Monitor
Screen ---x
\-------------Deviceby directly linking the Device and Monitor section. Dogmatically that isn't really beautiful.
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
