--- Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alex Deucher wrote: > > looks like the post size limit ate my first attempt to post this. > > > > Anyway, I was finally able to access DRI cvs (from > > dri.freedesktop.org), so I pulled the latest tree and created a > radeon > > mergedfb patch against it. I've done some testing and it seems to > work > > fine. The patch only touches the 2D driver. I talked to Kevin E. > > Marin about merging it and he suggested I get it into the DRI tree. > I > > think this patch adds a useful feature and I'd like to see it get > > merged. Thoughts? > > I'd like to see something like this merged, definitely. Your code > looks fine > on a first pass, my only question is whether this is something that > can be > done largely or partly in shared device-independent code, and just > have > drivers hook that code in. > > It seems like a lot of cards have this type of capability and lots of > drivers > are doing this somewhat independently of one another. Is there some > common > code that can be abstracted out? (Looking quickly over the code > indicates > that a big percentage of it looks pretty hw-independent).
I agree. Most of it is HW independant. This was discussed several times on the xfree86 devel ML, and everyone agrees that it should be factored out into common code, however, when that will happen is kind of hazy. I thought about trying to do some of the work myself, but I guess we need a consensus on what's the best "mergedfb" API. the usual "5.0" material response. Also the Pseudo-xinerama stuff should also be folded into the next version of the real xinerama extension, but once again that's 5.0 material. Everyone is busy, so I don't know when the commom code would be written, much less an API agreed on. Thomas' sis mergedfb code (which my radeon code is based on) is already in the xfree86 tree. Both of our implementations plus the mga driver share the same mergedfb options so they are consistent. I don't want to write the common code only it have it be a waste of time due to a refactoring of X internals planned for 5.0 or because my API is lacking. > > And the other question is why didn't Kevin want it in the XFree86 > tree? Is > there going to be a problem merging this code at some point in the > future, or > did he just think DRI was a natural home for it? Just curious > really... He thought since it allowed for 3D in a dualhead configuration, it would be a better fit in the DRI tree. that's probably why most people would use it since xinerama works well for 2D-only dualhead. Thanks, Alex __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
