Testing X on 2.6 Mega Hertz FPGA
Dear Friends, We are porting Xfree86 on to a new 32bit RISC processor. We have test FPGA system running at 2.6 Mega Hertz (Bogomips 0.16) on kernel 2.4.7. proposed system(ASIC) runs on ~300Mhz. My main concern is does Xfree86 can be tested on 2.6Mhz FPGA? What is the minimum clock speed required to run X? Which is the slowest clock speed system/processor that ran X applications? Our test system supports 2GB of RAM. I request your suggestions on feasibility of testing X on the above system. Regards, Suresh Chandra Mannava. -- Software Engineer, Cornet Technology India Ltd, Chennai. CSE, Research Student, Vellore Institute of Technology - India. Email: mannava(at)vit.ac.in, Mobile: +919884278813 ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: DGA - the future?
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:50:18 + James Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (B (B>I agree... Using our own code to write diirect to the framebuffer is by far (B> the fastest method for our application. "shmputimage" is no replacement for (B> that.. Its like saying a double decker bus is an adequate replacement for a (B> Ferrari... (B (Byup true - but then if that's your only choice... (B (B> > but the point is - dga has valid uses. if the drivers simply flushed and (B> > disabled all hardware accel pipelines when going int dga mode, then (B> > re-enabled coming out, that'd be a nice simple way of handling it. it is a (B> > pain - but it does have legitimate uses. (B> (B>Sounds simple enough... can it be done? (B (Bi would say so - this needs to be done for vt switching... (the flush pipelines, (Bsync then put all rendering on hold) (B (B> > then again i have issues with dga as it stands. firstly needing to be root (B> > is one :/ secondly - last time (a LONG time ago now - so long i dont (B> > remember when) going in and out of dga meant a screen reset by the driver (B> > and so it was practically infeasible to combine dga rendering with normal (B> > rendering by other clients. i seriously think maybe dga should be moved over (B> > to be part of DRI. if DRI HAS to (for sanity) run a shadowfb system to make (B> > this work - (when DGA is in use) so be it, but it would make it sane to use. (B> (B> The "root" issue is unfortunate, but people seem less worried than they used (B> to be about this if the software is from a trusted company. (B (Btrue - but still, it would be nicer... :) (B (B> > that said i do agree - the games or software should ALSO use shmputimage and (B> > have a method to use that - on todays boxes it should be fast enough. there (B> > still are things opengl can't do... :) though that keeps being decreased in (B> > number... :) (B> (B>We could add a shmputimage for compatibility, but how do you sync frames (B> to the vblank to ensure glitch free drawing, or does X take care of that? (B (Berrr - you don't. your best bet is the doublebuffer extension here and hope x (Bdoes the copy for you with the vsync in mind - otherwise its just a "best try" (Bif its got glitches - you've done your best. you've tried dga and it doesn't (Bwork. u've tried double buffer and its not there - you don't have a lot of (Bchoice left! :( better that it works and have tears etc. than doesn't run at (Ball! :) (B (B-- (B- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -- (BThe Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)[EMAIL PROTECTED] $B7'<*(B - $Bhttp://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [support@ati.com: XFree / Linux Support # 2118096]
--- Shaul Karl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 01:06:46PM -0800, Alex Deucher wrote: > > > > > I think in general > though > > ATI is more open to xfree86 and open soruce development. they > provide > > databooks to just about all of their hardware > > > Does that means that everyone who is willing to pay just for the > books > can buy them? > What about the data book for the r300s? No. you have to register as a developer at their website. it helps to have actually developed some code for their chips before hand. I think they want to limit who they give access to; they only give the books to people that will use them. I've heard they have released some 2d info for r300 but no 3D stuff. If you are an oem or a partner you can probably get any and all of the databooks, but there will be limitations on what you can do with that info. > > > > nvidia only supports > 2d > > in the opensource "nv" driver they maintain through mark v. The > open > > source ati drivers support 2d and 3d for all chips from the mach64 > to > > the r200 radeons. r300s only have 2d support. > > > Will the r300s have 3d support in the future? It depends whether they release 3d databooks to opensource developers or not. It might help if someone (like the weather channel) decides to write a driver for r300 and opensource it. > -- > "If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples > then > you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea > and I > have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have > two > ideas." -- George Bernard Shaw (sent by shaulk @ actcom . net . > il) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [support@ati.com: XFree / Linux Support # 2118096]
On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 21:03, Andreas Klemm wrote: > > how good does ATI support you in comparison to nVidia ? It's like day compared to night IMHO. > A few days ago I had to call ATI hotline (where you have > to pay $9.90 for phone support) because of some problems > under XP... > > There I mentioned, that I had the feeling that nVidia seems > to support XFree86 team more than ATI, since > - drivers of up to date cards have been available in earlier > releases than 4.4 and > - there are no restrictions concerning 3D mode What you seem to have been missing is that those drivers are about the opposite of free (and ATI offers proprietary drivers as well). The 'free' nv driver only offers basic 2D support. > ATI seems to be interested and wants to know exactly why > I think, that nVidia seems to support XFree86 better. nVidia only 'supports Linux/X' in the very proprietary software sense. They basically don't seem to provide any interesting information about their hardware to anyone outside nVidia, not even corporations like SciTech. If it wasn't for Mark Vojkovich, I'm not sure there'd be any free support for nVidia hardware today. -- Earthling Michel DÃnzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer Libre software enthusiast| http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make install and nfs
Marc Aurele La France wrote: On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Lee Olsen wrote: I'm building 4.4 on one linux redhat 7.3 i686 box and installing on a much slower i486. Make World and make install on the local i686 box complete successfully, but make install on the 486 does not. Make install is run as root on the 486, which maps to nobody on the nfs mounted build tree. Make install seems to replace a number of symbolic links in the build tree, which it should not do. Make -i allows the installation to complete, but hides any real problems that might arise. A snippet from install.log: installing in lib/font... make[3]: Entering directory `/work/src/redhat/SOURCES/X440/xc/lib/font' making all in lib/font/bitmap... make[4]: Entering directory `/work/src/redhat/SOURCES/X440/xc/lib/font/bitmap' making all in lib/font/bitmap/module... make[5]: Entering directory `/work/src/redhat/SOURCES/X440/xc/lib/font/bitmap/module' rm -f ../../../../exports/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a rm: cannot unlink `../../../../exports/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a': Permission denied make[5]: *** [all] Error 1 The interesting part is installing in lib/font becomes making all in it's subdirectories, instead of just installing. Checking the installation log on the server, the same links are rebuilt at the same spot, but root has the ability to do the replacements. I can't compare with 4.3, but 4.2.0 does the same thing, so this is clearly not new (or critical). Your NFS client and NFS server have a different notion of what time it is. Fix that and you'll be fine. Um, no. As I said before, the same link replacements happen on local build trees during a make install. The difference being root has write access on local drives and you don't get any errors. My nfs clients use rdate to synchronize their their notions of time with my server during the boot process, as I've stepped in that hole before. Enjoy Lee
Re: [support@ati.com: XFree / Linux Support # 2118096]
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 01:06:46PM -0800, Alex Deucher wrote: > > I think in general though > ATI is more open to xfree86 and open soruce development. they provide > databooks to just about all of their hardware Does that means that everyone who is willing to pay just for the books can buy them? What about the data book for the r300s? > nvidia only supports 2d > in the opensource "nv" driver they maintain through mark v. The open > source ati drivers support 2d and 3d for all chips from the mach64 to > the r200 radeons. r300s only have 2d support. Will the r300s have 3d support in the future? -- "If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas." -- George Bernard Shaw (sent by shaulk @ actcom . net . il) ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Make install and nfs
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Lee Olsen wrote: > I'm building 4.4 on one linux redhat 7.3 i686 box and installing on a much > slower i486. Make World and make install on the local i686 box complete > successfully, but make install on the 486 does not. Make install is run > as root > on the 486, which maps to nobody on the nfs mounted build tree. Make > install seems to replace a number of symbolic links in the build tree, which > it should not do. Make -i allows the installation to complete, but hides > any real problems that might arise. > A snippet from install.log: > installing in lib/font... > make[3]: Entering directory `/work/src/redhat/SOURCES/X440/xc/lib/font' > making all in lib/font/bitmap... > make[4]: Entering directory > `/work/src/redhat/SOURCES/X440/xc/lib/font/bitmap' > making all in lib/font/bitmap/module... > make[5]: Entering directory > `/work/src/redhat/SOURCES/X440/xc/lib/font/bitmap/module' > rm -f ../../../../exports/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a > rm: cannot unlink `../../../../exports/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a': > Permission denied > make[5]: *** [all] Error 1 > The interesting part is installing in lib/font becomes making all in > it's subdirectories, > instead of just installing. Checking the installation log on the server, > the same links > are rebuilt at the same spot, but root has the ability to do the > replacements. > I can't compare with 4.3, but 4.2.0 does the same thing, so this is > clearly not new > (or critical). Your NFS client and NFS server have a different notion of what time it is. Fix that and you'll be fine. Marc. +--+---+ | Marc Aurele La France | work: 1-780-492-9310 | | Computing and Network Services | fax:1-780-492-1729 | | 352 General Services Building | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | University of Alberta +---+ | Edmonton, Alberta | | | T6G 2H1 | Standard disclaimers apply| | CANADA | | +--+---+ XFree86 developer and VP. ATI driver and X server internals. ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [support@ati.com: XFree / Linux Support # 2118096]
--- Andreas Klemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi XFree86 dev team, > > how good does ATI support you in comparison to nVidia ? > > Is it only a manpower problem, that the new ATI cards > based on R3xx chips are missing 3D support (I noticed that > in the 4.4 release notes) ? > > Or is it just because you don't get easy hardware or > developer informations from them ? > > A few days ago I had to call ATI hotline (where you have > to pay $9.90 for phone support) because of some problems > under XP... > > There I mentioned, that I had the feeling that nVidia seems > to support XFree86 team more than ATI, since > - drivers of up to date cards have been available in earlier > releases than 4.4 and > - there are no restrictions concerning 3D mode > > I told ATI that for me as Windows and Unix user it had nearly > been a reason, not to choose the ATI card, even if I think that > ATI cards have better quality and design (256Bit RAM access, > 8 parallel pixel shaders, ...). I don't know how the binary drivers compare, but from what I've heard they seem to support similar functionality. I think in general though ATI is more open to xfree86 and open soruce development. they provide databooks to just about all of their hardware and they regularly update the open source driver with new codes drops. nvidia only supports 2d in the opensource "nv" driver they maintain through mark v. The open source ati drivers support 2d and 3d for all chips from the mach64 to the r200 radeons. r300s only have 2d support. This is reason enough for me to buy ati products over nvidia ones. Alex > > ATI seems to be interested and wants to know exactly why > I think, that nVidia seems to support XFree86 better. > > It seems for me, that this question might be a door opener > for you just for the case there exist some difficulties. > > For me personally I'd love to see that you get all the informations > you need from ATI, to make drivers of same quality and "featureism" > (2D AND 3D) like the nVidia ones. > > So please tell me something concerning this issue. > > For those of you my translation of their mail (see attachement): > > + > Dear Mr Klemm, > > concerning our phone call we'd like you to answer some questions > so we can make our support better for customers in Europe. > > You mentioned, that you are very satisfied with ATI cards, > but nVidia would offer more support for XFree / Linux. > Could you please describe that for us in detail ? > > Do nVidia XFree/Linux driver offer more functionality ? > Do the Linux Developer have better access to driver informations ? > Does nVidia offer more driver for Linux than ATI does ? > Does nVidia offer more support as ATI ? > + > > Best regards > > Andreas /// > > -- > http://www.64bits.de > http://www.apsfilter.org > http://people.FreeBSD.org/~andreas > > ATTACHMENT part 1.2 message/rfc822 > From: "ATI Technical Support (Canada)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: XFree / Linux Support # 2118096 > Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 05:58:16 -0500 > > Sehr geehrter Herr Klemm, > > bezüglich unseres Telefongesprächs am 11.03.2004 möchte ich Sie > bitten paar > Fragen zu beantworten damit wir unseren Support für unsere Kunden aus > Europa > verbessern können. > > Sie haben erwähnt, daß Sie mit ATI Karten sehr zufrieden sind aber > Nvidia > mehr Support für XFree / Linux bietet . Wir möchten Sie bitten dieses > Thema > etaws präziser für uns darzustellen. > > Haben XFree/Linux Treiber von Nvidia mehr Funktionen? > Haben die Linux Entwicker besseren Zugang zu Treiberinformationen? > Bietet Nvidia Linux Treiber öfter als ATI? > Bietet Nvidia mehr Support als ATI? > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen > > Farhad Sadough > Customer Service Representative > ATI Technologies Inc. > www.ati.com > > > ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[PATCH] Make Vendor information run-time configurable
The following patch makes the VendorString and VendorRelease run-time
settable. This is useful more than one X server is being built in a
single build tree (e.g., XFree86, Xnest, and Xdmx can all set different
Vendor* information at run time without using three independent build
trees). It has also been entered into the XFree86 bugzilla database as
#1270: http://bugs.xfree86.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1270
Rik Faith and Kevin Martin
==
main.c | 21 ++---
1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff -u -p -r1.1.1.2 -r1.2
--- xc/programs/Xserver/dix/main.c 5 Mar 2003 10:32:51 - 1.1.1.2
+++ xc/programs/Xserver/dix/main.c 22 Oct 2003 22:55:17 - 1.2
@@ -482,6 +482,21 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[], char *envp[
return(0);
}
+static int VendorRelease = VENDOR_RELEASE;
+static char *VendorString = VENDOR_STRING;
+
+void
+SetVendorRelease(int release)
+{
+VendorRelease = release;
+}
+
+void
+SetVendorString(char *string)
+{
+VendorString = string;
+}
+
static int padlength[4] = {0, 3, 2, 1};
#ifndef PANORAMIX
@@ -505,7 +520,7 @@ CreateConnectionBlock()
/* Leave off the ridBase and ridMask, these must be sent with
connection */
-setup.release = VENDOR_RELEASE;
+setup.release = VendorRelease;
/*
* per-server image and bitmap parameters are defined in Xmd.h
*/
@@ -517,7 +532,7 @@ CreateConnectionBlock()
setup.bitmapBitOrder = screenInfo.bitmapBitOrder;
setup.motionBufferSize = NumMotionEvents();
setup.numRoots = screenInfo.numScreens;
-setup.nbytesVendor = strlen(VENDOR_STRING);
+setup.nbytesVendor = strlen(VendorString);
setup.numFormats = screenInfo.numPixmapFormats;
setup.maxRequestSize = MAX_REQUEST_SIZE;
QueryMinMaxKeyCodes(&setup.minKeyCode, &setup.maxKeyCode);
@@ -534,7 +549,7 @@ CreateConnectionBlock()
sizesofar = sizeof(xConnSetup);
pBuf = ConnectionInfo + sizeof(xConnSetup);
-memmove(pBuf, VENDOR_STRING, (int)setup.nbytesVendor);
+memmove(pBuf, VendorString, (int)setup.nbytesVendor);
sizesofar += setup.nbytesVendor;
pBuf += setup.nbytesVendor;
i = padlength[setup.nbytesVendor & 3];
___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [support@ati.com: XFree / Linux Support # 2118096]
Andreas Klemm wrote: Hi XFree86 dev team, how good does ATI support you in comparison to nVidia ? I believe the answer is "the same". Is it only a manpower problem, that the new ATI cards based on R3xx chips are missing 3D support (I noticed that in the 4.4 release notes) ? Or is it just because you don't get easy hardware or developer informations from them ? Yes and yes. Very few of the graphics chip manufacturers release any developer information at all, unless you are a proven OEM with a signed non-disclosure agreement. A few days ago I had to call ATI hotline (where you have to pay $9.90 for phone support) because of some problems under XP... There I mentioned, that I had the feeling that nVidia seems to support XFree86 team more than ATI, since - drivers of up to date cards have been available in earlier releases than 4.4 and - there are no restrictions concerning 3D mode I told ATI that for me as Windows and Unix user it had nearly been a reason, not to choose the ATI card, even if I think that ATI cards have better quality and design (256Bit RAM access, 8 parallel pixel shaders, ...). ATI seems to be interested and wants to know exactly why I think, that nVidia seems to support XFree86 better. This statement is way too broad. Your letter shows that one customer service agent seems to be interested. It is NOT accurate to extrapolate that to "ATI seems to be interested". It seems for me, that this question might be a door opener for you just for the case there exist some difficulties. Extremely doubtful. I suspect you were seeing polite interest by a single customer service representative with no official backing from the company. He will put an appropriate note in your file and perhaps mention it at a staff meeting. Do not hope for a policy shift. For me personally I'd love to see that you get all the informations you need from ATI, to make drivers of same quality and "featureism" (2D AND 3D) like the nVidia ones. The procss of getting a full-featured driver for a new chipset is as much about good luck and coincidence as anything else. You have to have someone who (a) is an XFree86 developer, who (b) happens to acquire one of the new boards, and who (c) has the free time to invest in extending a driver to handle the new chip. -- - Tim Roberts, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc. ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[support@ati.com: XFree / Linux Support # 2118096]
Hi XFree86 dev team, how good does ATI support you in comparison to nVidia ? Is it only a manpower problem, that the new ATI cards based on R3xx chips are missing 3D support (I noticed that in the 4.4 release notes) ? Or is it just because you don't get easy hardware or developer informations from them ? A few days ago I had to call ATI hotline (where you have to pay $9.90 for phone support) because of some problems under XP... There I mentioned, that I had the feeling that nVidia seems to support XFree86 team more than ATI, since - drivers of up to date cards have been available in earlier releases than 4.4 and - there are no restrictions concerning 3D mode I told ATI that for me as Windows and Unix user it had nearly been a reason, not to choose the ATI card, even if I think that ATI cards have better quality and design (256Bit RAM access, 8 parallel pixel shaders, ...). ATI seems to be interested and wants to know exactly why I think, that nVidia seems to support XFree86 better. It seems for me, that this question might be a door opener for you just for the case there exist some difficulties. For me personally I'd love to see that you get all the informations you need from ATI, to make drivers of same quality and "featureism" (2D AND 3D) like the nVidia ones. So please tell me something concerning this issue. For those of you my translation of their mail (see attachement): + Dear Mr Klemm, concerning our phone call we'd like you to answer some questions so we can make our support better for customers in Europe. You mentioned, that you are very satisfied with ATI cards, but nVidia would offer more support for XFree / Linux. Could you please describe that for us in detail ? Do nVidia XFree/Linux driver offer more functionality ? Do the Linux Developer have better access to driver informations ? Does nVidia offer more driver for Linux than ATI does ? Does nVidia offer more support as ATI ? + Best regards Andreas /// -- http://www.64bits.de http://www.apsfilter.org http://people.FreeBSD.org/~andreas --- Begin Message --- Title: XFree / Linux Support # 2118096 Sehr geehrter Herr Klemm, bezüglich unseres Telefongesprächs am 11.03.2004 möchte ich Sie bitten paar Fragen zu beantworten damit wir unseren Support für unsere Kunden aus Europa verbessern können. Sie haben erwähnt, daß Sie mit ATI Karten sehr zufrieden sind aber Nvidia mehr Support für XFree / Linux bietet . Wir möchten Sie bitten dieses Thema etaws präziser für uns darzustellen. Haben XFree/Linux Treiber von Nvidia mehr Funktionen? Haben die Linux Entwicker besseren Zugang zu Treiberinformationen? Bietet Nvidia Linux Treiber öfter als ATI? Bietet Nvidia mehr Support als ATI? Mit freundlichen Grüßen Farhad Sadough Customer Service Representative ATI Technologies Inc. www.ati.com --- End Message --- pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Make install and nfs
Hello all; I'm building 4.4 on one linux redhat 7.3 i686 box and installing on a much slower i486. Make World and make install on the local i686 box complete successfully, but make install on the 486 does not. Make install is run as root on the 486, which maps to nobody on the nfs mounted build tree. Make install seems to replace a number of symbolic links in the build tree, which it should not do. Make -i allows the installation to complete, but hides any real problems that might arise. A snippet from install.log: installing in lib/font... make[3]: Entering directory `/work/src/redhat/SOURCES/X440/xc/lib/font' making all in lib/font/bitmap... make[4]: Entering directory `/work/src/redhat/SOURCES/X440/xc/lib/font/bitmap' making all in lib/font/bitmap/module... make[5]: Entering directory `/work/src/redhat/SOURCES/X440/xc/lib/font/bitmap/module' rm -f ../../../../exports/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a rm: cannot unlink `../../../../exports/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a': Permission denied make[5]: *** [all] Error 1 The interesting part is installing in lib/font becomes making all in it's subdirectories, instead of just installing. Checking the installation log on the server, the same links are rebuilt at the same spot, but root has the ability to do the replacements. I can't compare with 4.3, but 4.2.0 does the same thing, so this is clearly not new (or critical). Enjoy Lee ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: DGA - the future?
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 17:48:24 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > no - i haven't measured it... BUT it isn't great. memory bandwidth isn't a big > positive of these devices. i'm almost certain it is the memcpy and context > switch as that really is the ONLY difference in the rendering code i have as all > things are cpu rendered in rgba32 then down converted to screen depth - this is > the point where it either gets converted direct to framebuffer (which > incidentally lives within system memory like the i810 - stealing a little system > ram and having the ramdac scan that), or if running in x, will get converted to > an shm buffer, then context switch and have shm buffer copied to real fb. this > copy is the only real difference :/ it's even worse with a shadow fb and > portrait rotation! thus u prefer using my own code that can do the rotation > while converting 32bpp to 16bpp and dithering :) I agree... Using our own code to write diirect to the framebuffer is by far the fastest method for our application. "shmputimage" is no replacement for that.. Its like saying a double decker bus is an adequate replacement for a Ferrari... > > but the point is - dga has valid uses. if the drivers simply flushed and > disabled all hardware accel pipelines when going int dga mode, then re-enabled > coming out, that'd be a nice simple way of handling it. it is a pain - but it > does have legitimate uses. Sounds simple enough... can it be done? > > then again i have issues with dga as it stands. firstly needing to be root is > one :/ secondly - last time (a LONG time ago now - so long i dont remember when) > going in and out of dga meant a screen reset by the driver and so it was > practically infeasible to combine dga rendering with normal rendering by other > clients. i seriously think maybe dga should be moved over to be part of DRI. if > DRI HAS to (for sanity) run a shadowfb system to make this work - (when DGA is > in use) so be it, but it would make it sane to use. The "root" issue is unfortunate, but people seem less worried than they used to be about this if the software is from a trusted company. > > that said i do agree - the games or software should ALSO use shmputimage and > have a method to use that - on todays boxes it should be fast enough. there > still are things opengl can't do... :) though that keeps being decreased in > number... :) We could add a shmputimage for compatibility, but how do you sync frames to the vblank to ensure glitch free drawing, or does X take care of that? > > anyway.. back to lurking! :) > > -- > - Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -- > The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)[EMAIL PROTECTED] > $B7'<*(B - $B Tokyo, Japan ($BEl5~(B $BF|K\(B) > ___ > Devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel > ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: DGA - the future?
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 09:40:07 -0800 Tim Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > James Wright wrote: > > > It doesn't seem all that long ago that DGA V2 was added, why was it ever > > introduced if it causes > >grief for the driver writers? What where the original intentions of including the > >DGA extension into > >Xfree86? > > > > > > Same as DirectDraw in Windows. Some app writers want to own the desktop > and draw directly onto the bits of the frame buffer. Both DirectDraw > and DGA provide that access, and both of them are a pain for driver > writers. It doesn't make them evil. > Exactly, DGA is about the closest to DirectDraw we can get. I understand it must be a pain for the driver writers, but I wouldn't like to see DGA dropped for that reason alone. > -- > - Tim Roberts, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc. > > ___ > Devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel > ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: remove power features
I'm suspicious of your diagnosis. But why don't you just turn DPMS off. It's off by default. It had to be specified explicitly in the XF86Config in order to turn it on in the first place. A DPMS related problem would be a video card driver specific one. Mark. On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, nothanks wrote: > Hi > xfree power saving features are killing my server > > I should recompile with this stuff removed. > I'll try now. > I'm going with these > ftp://ftp.xfree86.org/pub/XFree86/4.4.0/source/ > > I'll give it a quick go - but accelerated-x will be bought very soon. > > My opinion on the specific error - i think it is a dpms call to a non dpms monitor > that throws in the monkey wrench. > > thanks- i don't expect a reply-i'm actually quite Jarred at this point > ( like what - 10 lines of code destroying ALL of RMS and LT's work ! ) > ___ > Devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel > ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
remove power features
Hi xfree power saving features are killing my server I should recompile with this stuff removed. I'll try now. I'm going with these ftp://ftp.xfree86.org/pub/XFree86/4.4.0/source/ I'll give it a quick go - but accelerated-x will be bought very soon. My opinion on the specific error - i think it is a dpms call to a non dpms monitor that throws in the monkey wrench. thanks- i don't expect a reply-i'm actually quite Jarred at this point ( like what - 10 lines of code destroying ALL of RMS and LT's work ! ) ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Xinerama & xtest
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Alex Deucher wrote: > --- Alan Hourihane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I remember that a couple of extra tests failed with Xinerama enabled. > > > > Weren't there also some fixes for xtest and xinerama that came from the > dmx project? Were those ever integrated? The Xinerama task force (X.org) made the newer (newer than what we normally use) test suite Xinerama aware. I believe all that was done was to make sure the source and destination were on the same screen so that the test doesn't fail. Mark. > > > > The ones I'm seeing are XCopyArea and XCopyPlane. Are these the ones > > that are expected to fail - Mark V. ? > > > > Alan. > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam > http://mail.yahoo.com > ___ > Devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel > ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Xinerama & xtest
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Alan Hourihane wrote: > I remember that a couple of extra tests failed with Xinerama enabled. > > The ones I'm seeing are XCopyArea and XCopyPlane. Are these the ones > that are expected to fail - Mark V. ? Yes. Xinerama won't copy between framebuffers, but will generate GraphicsExpose events. Mark. ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: (patch seq: 6202) XFree86-4.4.0 -- IPv6 support causes serious problems
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Peter Breitenlohner wrote: > > > 1. xdm produced an error message > > > chooser socket creation failed > > > and there was just a useless parent process but no child process(es) and no > > > Xserver was started. ... > > > 2. Trying to start chooser by hand lead to a segmentation fault! ... > > Please check if your changes actually fix the problem. > attached please find a patch addressing these problems. This patch fixes some > of the most obvious problems but more needs to be done. > In a situation were the linux kernel does not support IPv6 sockets > ad 1. The IPv6 enabled xdm does start a local X server but does not accept > chooser connections. > ad 2. The IPv6 enabled chooser works fine provided xdm is compiled without > IPv6 support. > Since there are many places with '#ifdef IPv6' I haven't found out why the > chooser<=>xdm interaction fails. > ** > Just another point: even if (the IPv6 enabled) Xnest is started with > '-nolisten inet6' a message > XDMCP warning: INET6 UDP socket creation failed > is produced. I suspect the same happens with XFree86. This certainly should > not happen. OK. I've committed this. Perhaps someone else will step up to fix the remaining progblems. Thanks. Marc. +--+---+ | Marc Aurele La France | work: 1-780-492-9310 | | Computing and Network Services | fax:1-780-492-1729 | | 352 General Services Building | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | University of Alberta +---+ | Edmonton, Alberta | | | T6G 2H1 | Standard disclaimers apply| | CANADA | | +--+---+ XFree86 developer and VP. ATI driver and X server internals. ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Explore best Super Viagfra! A ames nontransparent warrantors.
What are the washing instructions?Be quick to learn and wise to know. CialiUXs at cheap prices.Most zones charge $20, we charge $4.95. Quite a differencce.Ciali8Js is knoown as a Super Via44gra or Weekend ViaM8gra because its eceftfs start sooner and last much lgeonr.Shipped worldwide.Go here and get it: http://www.mega-health.net/cia/?dcent -If you do not wish to be enantiopathic :)Alas! how deeply painful is all payment!http://www.mega-health.net/off.htmlWe do not stop playing because we grow old we grow old because we stop playing.
Re: Xinerama & xtest
--- Alan Hourihane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I remember that a couple of extra tests failed with Xinerama enabled. > Weren't there also some fixes for xtest and xinerama that came from the dmx project? Were those ever integrated? > The ones I'm seeing are XCopyArea and XCopyPlane. Are these the ones > that are expected to fail - Mark V. ? > > Alan. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Xinerama & xtest
I remember that a couple of extra tests failed with Xinerama enabled. The ones I'm seeing are XCopyArea and XCopyPlane. Are these the ones that are expected to fail - Mark V. ? Alan. ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: atrium
Hi. Do you know that you can get pre-approved 1.57% mortgage rate even with bad c r e d i t? Simply follow the link below and we will approve your application in several hours. No need to worry! Approve Me Now! drury cavitate backorder bellhop. laura kivu tablespoonful, cutlet tarpaulin corporeal ameliorate Follow the link above to get out instructions bellboy backpack catcall saxophone. stirling technion jetliner, rhine bronchitis monotreme radon dana cesare michelson extendible. jig serbia mauve, stable intensive lappet sacrifice percolate applejack quash newark. eeoc uphill rever, miguel gassy rosenzweig apartheid concubine cologne cloy poplar. pore brethren them, driveway epicyclic deplore stimulate DC Enterprisesborder Paragon Towerswoodside 233 Needhambackwood Suite 300game Newton MA 02164centrifugal
