Summer of Code 2010

[Barton C Massey]

I am hoping for X.Org to once again participate in Google's
Summer of Code program in 2010.  It has been very successful
for us in the past.  The mentoring organization application
period starts in a week or two.

In previous years, I've tried to share the responsibility
for being Org Admin for Google/X.Org SoC.  It hasn't worked
very well, maybe because of communication fail on my part.
I guess I'm willing to continue leading this if no one else
qualified wants to, but I'd also be happy to turn it over
entirely to someone else; I can also give you some tips
above and beyond what is in the GSoC Mentoring Guide [1] I
helped write last summer.

SO: If you're a hard-working person with good communication,
organization and time management skills who would like to be
the Google/X.Org Summer of Code Organization Administrator
in 2010, please let me know.  Past experience with GSoC
would be a big plus here, as would good contacts in the
X.Org Dev community.  Above all, you'll be on the hook to
make sure that the program succeeds. Google only continues
to fund those Mentoring Orgs that consistently keep up with
their paperwork and get good results for / from the
students.

Thanks for your time and potential interest.

Bart Massey
b...@cs.pdx.edu

1. http://en.flossmanuals.net/GSoCMentoringGuide
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Re: dual-DPU XRandR almost working, DVI-0 stays blank (was: "Screen 1 deleted because of no matching section")

[Corbin Simpson]

You'll have to Zaphod the head. Good luck. :3

Posting from a mobile, pardon my terseness. ~ C.

On Feb 22, 2010 11:37 AM, "martin f krafft"  wrote:

also sprach martin f krafft  [2010.02.22.1317 +0100]:

> Based on the auto-configuration idea, I found that XRandR wants me
> to have just two Device secti...
A reboot of the machine fixed that.

Now it seems like the only remaining problem now is that Screen 1,
which is the Radeon 9200 card, provides a display spanning both
monitors, but it appears to my window manager (awesome) as a single
head.

xorg.conf and log attached.

xrandr again shows everything as I'd expect it, but something is
preventing X from creating two heads for the screen:

 % xrandr -display :0.1 -q   #1,10022

Screen 1: minimum 320 x 200, current 2560 x 1024, maximum 4096 x 4096
DVI-1 connected 1280x1024+...
How can I split the screen into two heads? Note that I do not want
to return to pure-Zaphod and duplicating Device/Screen sections for
each of the two ports of the Radeon 9200 (using Screen 0/1 lines),
because I'd just run into the problem described here again:
 http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2010-February/049355.html


Thanks,

-- 
martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/
the early bird may get the worm,
but the second mouse gets the cheese in the trap.


spamtraps: madduck.bo...@madduck.net

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEAREDAAYFAkuC3OEACgkQIgvIgzMMSnVZxACgpHR5I+8AdupvRDmN7ruMYzca
JhsAoOLpQuqYX7OhammBica84Imr+9jo
=DpvV
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Re: X11 still uses /dev/mem ?

[Adam Jackson]

On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 18:59 +, Nix wrote:
> On 22 Feb 2010, Adam Jackson verbalised:
> > That, and device permissions on /dev/dri/whatever, and that GEM objects
> > are globally visible so you're still trusting that multiple X servers
> > don't intentionally snoop on each other.
> 
> Device permissions are fixable with one udev rule / chown / chmod /
> whatever. The 'intentionally snooping X servers' problem only allows
> users to spy on other users (and perhaps bash their 3D state), but
> doesn't allow arbitrary code execution as root unless there are more
> bugs allowing users to instruct the GPU to DMA stuff to arbitrary parts
> of system RAM (in which case we have a security hole even in the absence
> of multiple users).

You're typically not allowed to screen-scrape other users' X sessions.
So even though this isn't a root-escalation issue, it's still weaker
than what X currently enforces.

I'm not saying running X not as uid 0 isn't a worthy goal, just that
allowing arbitrary users to touch the drm device is not currently a
great idea.

> Input device revocation still seems important though :( a shame there's
> no workaround, even if a hacky one :/ we don't realy need generalized
> revoke() for this, do we? Just revoke() on a limited class of devices?

Correct.

- ajax


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Re: dual-DPU XRandR almost working, DVI-0 stays blank (was: "Screen 1 deleted because of no matching section")

[martin f krafft]

also sprach martin f krafft  [2010.02.22.1317 +0100]:
> Based on the auto-configuration idea, I found that XRandR wants me
> to have just two Device sections, not three as I did previously. The
> attached xorg.conf file now indeed seems to do almost everything
> I want, except that the Monitor on DVI-0, i.e. the one on the Radeon
> 9250 card referenced by ScreenLeft, stays blank. This is RADEON(0)
> in the attached log.

A reboot of the machine fixed that.

Now it seems like the only remaining problem now is that Screen 1,
which is the Radeon 9200 card, provides a display spanning both
monitors, but it appears to my window manager (awesome) as a single
head.

xorg.conf and log attached.

xrandr again shows everything as I'd expect it, but something is
preventing X from creating two heads for the screen:

  % xrandr -display :0.1 -q   #1,10022
  Screen 1: minimum 320 x 200, current 2560 x 1024, maximum 4096 x 4096
  DVI-1 connected 1280x1024+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 
375mm x 301mm
1280x1024  60.0*+   75.0  
1024x768   75.1 70.1 60.0  
832x62474.6  
800x60072.2 75.0 60.3 56.2  
640x48072.8 75.0 66.7 60.0  
720x40070.1  
  VGA-1 connected 1280x1024+1280+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 
0mm x 0mm
1280x1024x75.00   75.0*+
1360x768   59.8  
1024x768   60.0  
800x60060.3 56.2  
848x48060.0  
640x48059.9 59.9  
  S-video disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)

How can I split the screen into two heads? Note that I do not want
to return to pure-Zaphod and duplicating Device/Screen sections for
each of the two ports of the Radeon 9200 (using Screen 0/1 lines),
because I'd just run into the problem described here again:
  http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2010-February/049355.html

Thanks,

-- 
martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/
 
the early bird may get the worm,
but the second mouse gets the cheese in the trap.
 
spamtraps: madduck.bo...@madduck.net
# /etc/X11/xorg.conf (xorg X Window System server configuration file)

#Section "Files"
#ModulePath  "/usr/local/lib/xorg/modules,/usr/lib/xorg/modules"
#EndSection

Section "Monitor"
Identifier  "Acer AL922[0]"
Option  "PreferredMode" "1280x1024x75.00"
Option  "Enable" "true"
EndSection

Section "Monitor"
Identifier  "Acer AL922[1]"
Option  "PreferredMode" "1280x1024x75.00"
Option  "Enable" "true"
Option  "Primary" "true"
EndSection

Section "Monitor"
Identifier  "MRM B18XA"
#HorizSync   24-80
#VertRefresh 30-60
# 1280x1024 @ 75.00 Hz (GTF) hsync: 80.17 kHz; pclk: 138.54 MHz
Modeline"1280x1024x75.00"  138.54  1280 1368 1504 1728  1024 1025 
1028 1069  -HSync +Vsync
Option  "PreferredMode" "1280x1024x75.00"
Option  "Enable" "true"
Option  "RightOf" "DVI-1"
EndSection

Section "Device"
Identifier  "Radeon 9250"
Driver  "radeon"
BusID   "PCI:0:12:0"
Option  "Monitor-DVI-0" "Acer AL922[0]"
EndSection

Section "Device"
Identifier  "Radeon 9200"
Driver  "radeon"
BusID   "PCI:1:0:0"
Option  "Monitor-DVI-1" "Acer AL922[1]"
Option  "Monitor-VGA-1" "MRM B18XA"
EndSection

Section "Screen"
Identifier  "ScreenLeft"
Device  "Radeon 9250"
DefaultDepth24
SubSection "Display"
Depth   24
EndSubSection
EndSection

Section "Screen"
Identifier  "ScreenRight"
Device  "Radeon 9200"
DefaultDepth24
SubSection "Display"
Depth   24
EndSubSection
EndSection

Section "ServerFlags"
Option  "DontZap" "yes"
Option  "AllowDeactivateGrabs" "yes"
Option  "AllowClosedownGrabs" "yes"
EndSection

Section "ServerLayout"
Identifier  "Dual-Head"
Screen0 "ScreenLeft"
Screen1 "ScreenRight" RightOf "ScreenLeft"
Option  "Xinerama" "false"
EndSection

Section "Extensions"
Option  "Composite" "Enable"
Option  "RENDER" "true"
Option  "DAMAGE" "true"
EndSection


Xorg.0.log.gz
Description: Binary data


digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Re: Paypal stealing from Xorg [was: Re: Board voting ends today, but...]

[Hélder Gomes]

What money disapearing into Brazil banking system?

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Steffen Schaumburg <
stef...@schaumburger.info> wrote:

> On 22/02/10 18:18, Franco Catrin L. wrote:
> > El vie, 19-02-2010 a las 07:57 +0800, Jaya Kumar escribió:
> >
> >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Daniel Stone 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> $US24k for travel sponsorship (no joke), and something like $US5k lost
> >>> to PayPal (they decided we were scammers and took our money) as well as
> >>> around $US5k that vanished into the Brazilian banking system, which
> >>>
> >> That is scary, USD$10k gone! I'm surprised that no one raised this
> >> issue into a big public complaint, or maybe someone already did and I
> >> just didn't notice. I'm not familiar with the US legal system, but
> >> surely there is a small claims court where one can quickly assert a
> >> claim and put the burden of an honest response on Paypal?
> >>
> > The US legal system is prone to this type of abuse.
> >
> > I wrote an article about this situation in a well known spanish blog
> > [*], may be someone can do the same in english.
> >
> > I don't think that it would help the Foundation get back the money, but
> > at least it may help to take this abuse into public knowledge
> >
> I completely agree. I'll spare you my opinion of the US criminal justice
> system, but this is a clear case of organised theft (or fraud or
> embezzlement - IANAL) whether or not it is possible to get a conviction.
> There's two key points to consider:
> - eBay (owners of Paypal) will continue these crimes without a doubt -
> why shouldn't they?
> - Many free software projects/developers use or will use eBay/Paypal to
> receive donations/payments - and eBay will inevitably steal from some of
> these. Whilst Xorg survived relatively unscathed with the $5k missing
> most projects would be hurt BADLY if they got their donations account
> stolen.
>
> I propose the following actions:
> - Unless it's definitely a complete waste of time civil as well as
> criminal charges should be brought by Xorg against eBay, as far as this
> is possible without undue costs or risks to Xorg. Remember - just
> because the contract says that eBay can steal doesn't mean it's not a
> crime if they actually do it. Laws supersede contracts.
> - Information about this (especially emails from eBay "support") should
> be made public and should be publicised, e.g. by emails to this list,
> the Xorg Wiki (on that note - there's actually a suggestion on there to
> use Paypal to donate to Xorg devs...), etc. Due to the particularly
> despicable nature of the crime (what kind of a sick perverted bastard
> steals from a charity?) and the likely negative effect on other related
> projects I'd go as far as putting a link or banner about this right on
> the front page.
>
> Cheers, Steffen
>
> PS: Bear in mind that my choice of words may not be the best if one is
> concerned about lawsuits by eBay for e.g. slander ;)
> ___
> xorg mailing list
> xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Paypal stealing from Xorg [was: Re: Board voting ends today, but...]

[Steffen Schaumburg]

On 22/02/10 18:18, Franco Catrin L. wrote:
> El vie, 19-02-2010 a las 07:57 +0800, Jaya Kumar escribió:
>   
>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Daniel Stone  wrote:
>> 
>>> $US24k for travel sponsorship (no joke), and something like $US5k lost
>>> to PayPal (they decided we were scammers and took our money) as well as
>>> around $US5k that vanished into the Brazilian banking system, which
>>>   
>> That is scary, USD$10k gone! I'm surprised that no one raised this
>> issue into a big public complaint, or maybe someone already did and I
>> just didn't notice. I'm not familiar with the US legal system, but
>> surely there is a small claims court where one can quickly assert a
>> claim and put the burden of an honest response on Paypal?
>> 
> The US legal system is prone to this type of abuse.
>
> I wrote an article about this situation in a well known spanish blog
> [*], may be someone can do the same in english.
>
> I don't think that it would help the Foundation get back the money, but
> at least it may help to take this abuse into public knowledge
>   
I completely agree. I'll spare you my opinion of the US criminal justice
system, but this is a clear case of organised theft (or fraud or
embezzlement - IANAL) whether or not it is possible to get a conviction.
There's two key points to consider:
- eBay (owners of Paypal) will continue these crimes without a doubt -
why shouldn't they?
- Many free software projects/developers use or will use eBay/Paypal to
receive donations/payments - and eBay will inevitably steal from some of
these. Whilst Xorg survived relatively unscathed with the $5k missing
most projects would be hurt BADLY if they got their donations account
stolen.

I propose the following actions:
- Unless it's definitely a complete waste of time civil as well as
criminal charges should be brought by Xorg against eBay, as far as this
is possible without undue costs or risks to Xorg. Remember - just
because the contract says that eBay can steal doesn't mean it's not a
crime if they actually do it. Laws supersede contracts.
- Information about this (especially emails from eBay "support") should
be made public and should be publicised, e.g. by emails to this list,
the Xorg Wiki (on that note - there's actually a suggestion on there to
use Paypal to donate to Xorg devs...), etc. Due to the particularly
despicable nature of the crime (what kind of a sick perverted bastard
steals from a charity?) and the likely negative effect on other related
projects I'd go as far as putting a link or banner about this right on
the front page.

Cheers, Steffen

PS: Bear in mind that my choice of words may not be the best if one is
concerned about lawsuits by eBay for e.g. slander ;)
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Re: X11 still uses /dev/mem ?

[Nix]

On 22 Feb 2010, Adam Jackson verbalised:

> On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 15:00 +, Nix wrote:
>> Am I right in assuming that pretty much all of these are UMS-related? 
>> i.e., in KMS the only thing now stopping us running X as non-root at
>> long last is the input-device-revocation problem?
>
> That, and device permissions on /dev/dri/whatever, and that GEM objects
> are globally visible so you're still trusting that multiple X servers
> don't intentionally snoop on each other.

Device permissions are fixable with one udev rule / chown / chmod /
whatever. The 'intentionally snooping X servers' problem only allows
users to spy on other users (and perhaps bash their 3D state), but
doesn't allow arbitrary code execution as root unless there are more
bugs allowing users to instruct the GPU to DMA stuff to arbitrary parts
of system RAM (in which case we have a security hole even in the absence
of multiple users).

So even if the GEM problem is not fixed, this reduces a possible-
root-if-the-X-server-is-buggy hole to a possible-root-if-the-kernel-is-
buggy hole --- and since we will always have the kernel in our
vulnerability surface, it seems to me that even with GEM fixed, a
non-root X would be a good thing to have.

Input device revocation still seems important though :( a shame there's
no workaround, even if a hacky one :/ we don't realy need generalized
revoke() for this, do we? Just revoke() on a limited class of devices?

(disclaimer: short of coffee, may be talking nonsense as a result)
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Re: Board voting ends today, but...

[Franco Catrin L.]

El vie, 19-02-2010 a las 07:57 +0800, Jaya Kumar escribió:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Daniel Stone  wrote:
> > $US24k for travel sponsorship (no joke), and something like $US5k lost
> > to PayPal (they decided we were scammers and took our money) as well as
> > around $US5k that vanished into the Brazilian banking system, which
> 
> That is scary, USD$10k gone! I'm surprised that no one raised this
> issue into a big public complaint, or maybe someone already did and I
> just didn't notice. I'm not familiar with the US legal system, but
> surely there is a small claims court where one can quickly assert a
> claim and put the burden of an honest response on Paypal?

The US legal system is prone to this type of abuse.

I wrote an article about this situation in a well known spanish blog
[*], may be someone can do the same in english.

I don't think that it would help the Foundation get back the money, but
at least it may help to take this abuse into public knowledge

[*] http://tinyurl.com/y8cx8ae

-- 
Franco Catrin Leiva - TUXPAN Software S.A.
http://www.tuxpan.com/fcatrin

___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Re: X11 still uses /dev/mem ?

[Adam Jackson]

On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 15:00 +, Nix wrote:
> On 17 Feb 2010, Adam Jackson said:
> 
> > On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 10:30 +0200, Nameer Yarkon wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> Does X11 still uses /dev/mem to directly manipulate the physical memory ?
> >
> > strace would tell you.  The answer is "it depends" though.  On Linux,
> > most memory access goes through the PCI BAR resource files in sysfs, but
> > there are some situations where we still have to use /dev/mem.
> 
> Am I right in assuming that pretty much all of these are UMS-related? 
> i.e., in KMS the only thing now stopping us running X as non-root at
> long last is the input-device-revocation problem?

That, and device permissions on /dev/dri/whatever, and that GEM objects
are globally visible so you're still trusting that multiple X servers
don't intentionally snoop on each other.

- ajax


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Re: Dual-head config broke with update to 1.4.2

[Alex Deucher]

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Martin Cracauer  wrote:
> Alex Deucher wrote on Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:48:39AM -0500:
>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Attila Kinali  wrote:
>> > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:35:14 -0500
>> > Alex Deucher  wrote:
>> >
>> >> The number of zaphod users is relatively
>> >> small and the amount of developer resources to support it is
>> >> relatively high. ?More people want to be able to use and dynamically
>> >> switch between all their connectors than want to use zapod.
>> >
>> > I disagre with you here.
>> > There are quite a few people who use that mode.
>> > Many of my friends use it that way and i was too
>> > until the mga driver got so horribly broken with noone
>> > caring to fix bugs, even if patches were avaibale,
>> > that i pulled my G550 out after 10y of use and replaced
>> > it with a radoen. Now i'm waiting for the driver evolve
>> > enough so i can use it again (there are more bugs in
>> > the currentl release that i've hit within a few hours
>> > of using, than you can count).
>> >
>> > As such. I strongly suggest, taht the xorg developers
>> > should think about providing a way to use zaphood mode
>> > with xrandr, for all those people who use their computer
>> > differently than you do.
>> >
>> > I mean, it cannot be that difficult to do that. After all
>> > xrandr provides the more difficult technique to move windows
>> > back and forth between the screens. It should be an easy thing
>> > to decouble them and put each of the physical screens into
>> > its own X11 screen.
>>
>> Dualhead as implemented by xrandr is actually much less complex than
>> zaphod mode.  It's basically one huge desktop with two monitors
>> pointed at different parts of it.  zaphod mode is relatively complex
>> to implement.  You basically have two approaches:
>> 1. Use the existing method where the driver loads twice for one card
>> and resources are split.
>> 2. Write/modify a window manager that behaves like zaphod mode.
>
> But there is only one Xorg but many window managers.  And even if you
> use a window manager which does this emulation that still doesn't
> change anything about any of the hundreds of other clients you might
> use not necessarily be aware of the xinerama extensions, or use them
> only partially.
>
> You use, just earlier this morning I was using xine on a xrandr screen
> and sure, for things like "full screen" it knows about cinerama.  But
> the initial position of the control window is completely random and it
> comes up on the other screen.  That's a Xinerama-aware client for you.
> Same, as mentioned for the GIMP, which comes up with half the windows
> on one display and half on the other.
>
> And as I said earlier, although there is xrandr support in the KDE and
> GNOME that are in Debian/stable as of today I found little things in
> both that are then still not Xinerama aware, just starting from the
> battery status floating thingie which is drawn half on one screen and
> half on the other.  In the Xinerama aware GNOME.
>
> I am still confident to say that I'll never use a Xinerama/xrandr
> setup on my desktops as long as there is a driver that does classic
> dual-screen.
>
> It is unrealistic to expect that *all* clients are made fully Xinerama
> aware and even those who do only do it partially.  There is no way
> that these clients take Xinerama into account on every single thing
> they do, witness GNOME battery display.
>
>
> I still don't get why you (Xorg) think that it is overall better for
> you to drop classic dual-screen, a thing that is or was already
> working in all Xorg drivers, and expect every single X11 client out
> there to be recoded.

For the 50th time, Xorg didn't drop it support for zaphod mode, it's
just not commonly used, so it doesn't get as much testing as randr.
If it did, we won't be having this discussion now.  Intel dropped
support in their driver, and the radeon support tends to succumb to
bit-rot since it's not tested too often.

The problem is, zaphod mode (as it is currently implemented) is hard
to support.  It was something of a hack to begin with and it does not
fit well with the way hardware is designed.  The driver loads twice
(!) on the same hardware and each instance has to keep synchronized
with the each other and not step on the other's feet. Ideally someone
would write some common xserver code to implement zaphod mode without
needing driver support, but so far no one has done that.

>
>> I agree some people like zaphod mode, and it would be nice to support
>> it better, however, I only have limited spare time.  It would be nice
>> if someone with some interest in zaphod mode would step up to help out
>> instead of just complaining when it breaks.
>
> But how do you expect people to notice all these devhead Xorg
> breakages when nobody runs Xorg devhead? You made it very hard to even
> have a Xorg devhead even for people who'd like to have an alternate
> install.  That little python script you provide didn't even ma

Re: Dual-head config broke with update to 1.4.2

[Martin Cracauer]

Alex Deucher wrote on Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:48:39AM -0500: 
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Attila Kinali  wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:35:14 -0500
> > Alex Deucher  wrote:
> >
> >> The number of zaphod users is relatively
> >> small and the amount of developer resources to support it is
> >> relatively high. ?More people want to be able to use and dynamically
> >> switch between all their connectors than want to use zapod.
> >
> > I disagre with you here.
> > There are quite a few people who use that mode.
> > Many of my friends use it that way and i was too
> > until the mga driver got so horribly broken with noone
> > caring to fix bugs, even if patches were avaibale,
> > that i pulled my G550 out after 10y of use and replaced
> > it with a radoen. Now i'm waiting for the driver evolve
> > enough so i can use it again (there are more bugs in
> > the currentl release that i've hit within a few hours
> > of using, than you can count).
> >
> > As such. I strongly suggest, taht the xorg developers
> > should think about providing a way to use zaphood mode
> > with xrandr, for all those people who use their computer
> > differently than you do.
> >
> > I mean, it cannot be that difficult to do that. After all
> > xrandr provides the more difficult technique to move windows
> > back and forth between the screens. It should be an easy thing
> > to decouble them and put each of the physical screens into
> > its own X11 screen.
> 
> Dualhead as implemented by xrandr is actually much less complex than
> zaphod mode.  It's basically one huge desktop with two monitors
> pointed at different parts of it.  zaphod mode is relatively complex
> to implement.  You basically have two approaches:
> 1. Use the existing method where the driver loads twice for one card
> and resources are split.
> 2. Write/modify a window manager that behaves like zaphod mode.

But there is only one Xorg but many window managers.  And even if you
use a window manager which does this emulation that still doesn't
change anything about any of the hundreds of other clients you might
use not necessarily be aware of the xinerama extensions, or use them
only partially.

You use, just earlier this morning I was using xine on a xrandr screen
and sure, for things like "full screen" it knows about cinerama.  But
the initial position of the control window is completely random and it
comes up on the other screen.  That's a Xinerama-aware client for you.
Same, as mentioned for the GIMP, which comes up with half the windows
on one display and half on the other.

And as I said earlier, although there is xrandr support in the KDE and
GNOME that are in Debian/stable as of today I found little things in
both that are then still not Xinerama aware, just starting from the
battery status floating thingie which is drawn half on one screen and
half on the other.  In the Xinerama aware GNOME.

I am still confident to say that I'll never use a Xinerama/xrandr
setup on my desktops as long as there is a driver that does classic
dual-screen. 

It is unrealistic to expect that *all* clients are made fully Xinerama
aware and even those who do only do it partially.  There is no way
that these clients take Xinerama into account on every single thing
they do, witness GNOME battery display.


I still don't get why you (Xorg) think that it is overall better for
you to drop classic dual-screen, a thing that is or was already
working in all Xorg drivers, and expect every single X11 client out
there to be recoded.

> I agree some people like zaphod mode, and it would be nice to support
> it better, however, I only have limited spare time.  It would be nice
> if someone with some interest in zaphod mode would step up to help out
> instead of just complaining when it breaks.

But how do you expect people to notice all these devhead Xorg
breakages when nobody runs Xorg devhead? You made it very hard to even
have a Xorg devhead even for people who'd like to have an alternate
install.  That little python script you provide didn't even make it
through a 10th of the build when I initially started building Xorg
devhead.

The whole thing is also not very friendly towards non-standard
--prefix locations.

Martin
-- 
%%%
Martin Cracauerhttp://www.cons.org/cracauer/
FreeBSD - where you want to go, today.  http://www.freebsd.org/
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Re: xrandr dual-screen usability survery (Was: Dual-head config broke with update to 1.4.2)

[Alex Deucher]

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Martin Cracauer  wrote:
> Alex Deucher wrote on Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:38:16PM -0500:
>>
>> So fine, here's the yearly zaphod fix:
>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-ati/commit/?id=579cdcf9b4e38c791a497b747a055fc0a07d8dd6
>
> I'm afraid this doesn't quite do it.
>
> It corrects the mistake of detecting DVI (see log).
>
> But I still don't get dual screens, it still drops the internal LCD
> screen and I end up with one screen, mirroed.  That happens both with
> the fresh xorg.conf and with the xorg.conf that worked before with
> just the new option put in.
>
> Any ideas? Maybe I just overlooked some config option for a changed
> default?

I'll take a look today.

>
> conf/log/backported-patch here:
> http://www.cons.org/xorg-problem201002/firstpatch/
>
> I also noticed that the Xv extension on the VGA output is not
> functional in that mirrored mode.  The LCD displays the video picture
> but the VGA has a blue window.  This might be normal.
>

The video overlay one works one crtc at time.  You have to select
which one you want to use it with using the XV_CRTC Xv attribute (you
can use xvattr to change Xv attributes).  Textured video Xv support
has been available for a while now (several years) and that has no
head limitations, although if you are using an old version of the
driver it might be missing.  xvinfo will show you the available
adapters.

Alex

> Martin
> --
> %%%
> Martin Cracauer    http://www.cons.org/cracauer/
> FreeBSD - where you want to go, today.      http://www.freebsd.org/
>
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Re: Dual-head config broke with update to 1.4.2

[Alex Deucher]

On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Attila Kinali  wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:35:14 -0500
> Alex Deucher  wrote:
>
>> The number of zaphod users is relatively
>> small and the amount of developer resources to support it is
>> relatively high.  More people want to be able to use and dynamically
>> switch between all their connectors than want to use zapod.
>
> I disagre with you here.
> There are quite a few people who use that mode.
> Many of my friends use it that way and i was too
> until the mga driver got so horribly broken with noone
> caring to fix bugs, even if patches were avaibale,
> that i pulled my G550 out after 10y of use and replaced
> it with a radoen. Now i'm waiting for the driver evolve
> enough so i can use it again (there are more bugs in
> the currentl release that i've hit within a few hours
> of using, than you can count).
>
> As such. I strongly suggest, taht the xorg developers
> should think about providing a way to use zaphood mode
> with xrandr, for all those people who use their computer
> differently than you do.
>
> I mean, it cannot be that difficult to do that. After all
> xrandr provides the more difficult technique to move windows
> back and forth between the screens. It should be an easy thing
> to decouble them and put each of the physical screens into
> its own X11 screen.

Dualhead as implemented by xrandr is actually much less complex than
zaphod mode.  It's basically one huge desktop with two monitors
pointed at different parts of it.  zaphod mode is relatively complex
to implement.  You basically have two approaches:
1. Use the existing method where the driver loads twice for one card
and resources are split.
2. Write/modify a window manager that behaves like zaphod mode.

I agree some people like zaphod mode, and it would be nice to support
it better, however, I only have limited spare time.  It would be nice
if someone with some interest in zaphod mode would step up to help out
instead of just complaining when it breaks.

Alex
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

Re: Xorg crashes...

[Ryan Daly]

On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 22:48 +0100, Tom Cowell wrote:
> Well, according to my primitive understanding, xmodmap is normally
> used for a little bit of tweaking of the keyboard layout (fiddling
> with delete and backspace, for instance, or swapping CapsLock and
> Ctrl).
> 
> Your file looks odd to me ("slash question slash question slash
> question"). Since you didn't write it, it was presumably generated by
> some piece of software, and maybe a confused and over-enthusiastic
> piece of software. I don't have 248 keys on my keyboard.
> 
> If you are really lucky, then this was the entire source of your
> problem. It might be informative to run the xmodmap command with this
> file as an argument, and see if it instantly causes problems.

Strange as it may be, I have been problem free since removing my
$HOME/.xmodmaprc file.  It's been a little over a month, so I think I'm
safe in saying that.  :)
--



This message and any files transmitted within are intended
solely for the addressee or its representative and may
contain company sensitive information.  If you are not the
intended recipient, notify the sender immediately and delete
this message.  Publication, reproduction, forwarding, or 
content disclosure is prohibited without the consent of the
original sender and may be unlawful.

Concurrent Technologies Corporation and its Affiliates.
www.ctc.com  1-800-282-4392

___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

dual-DPU XRandR almost working, DVI-0 stays blank (was: "Screen 1 deleted because of no matching section")

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Corbin Simpson  [2010.02.21.2224 +0100]:
> Try using Xorg's builtin configuration detection. Bring down X, then
> from a VT, do:
> 
> # Xorg -configure
> 
> Xorg should report finding a multicard setup, and the resulting
> xorg.conf should work.

I have switched to using xf86-video-ati at Git commit e68d3a3.

Based on the auto-configuration idea, I found that XRandR wants me
to have just two Device sections, not three as I did previously. The
attached xorg.conf file now indeed seems to do almost everything
I want, except that the Monitor on DVI-0, i.e. the one on the Radeon
9250 card referenced by ScreenLeft, stays blank. This is RADEON(0)
in the attached log.

xrandr seems to work:

  piper:~|master|% xrandr -display :0.0 -q
  Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1280 x 1024, maximum 4096 x 4096
  VGA-0 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
  DVI-0 connected 1280x1024+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 
375mm x 301mm
1280x1024  60.0*+   75.0  
1024x768   75.1 70.1 60.0  
832x62474.6  
800x60072.2 75.0 60.3 56.2  
640x48072.8 75.0 66.7 60.0  
720x40070.1  

  piper:~|master|% xrandr -display :0.1 -q
  Screen 1: minimum 320 x 200, current 2560 x 1024, maximum 4096 x 4096
  DVI-1 connected 1280x1024+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 
375mm x 301mm
1280x1024  60.0*+   75.0  
1024x768   75.1 70.1 60.0  
832x62474.6  
800x60072.2 75.0 60.3 56.2  
640x48072.8 75.0 66.7 60.0  
720x40070.1  
  VGA-1 connected 1280x1024+1280+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 
0mm x 0mm
1280x1024x75.00   75.0*+
1360x768   59.8  
1024x768   60.0  
800x60060.3 56.2  
848x48060.0  
640x48059.9 59.9  
  S-video disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)

Curiously, I cannot even get the on-screen dialog of the monitor to
display, but when I turn it on, the screen does say that there's no
signal.

So close… any ideas how to make the monitor on DVI-0 work?

Thanks,

-- 
martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/
 
"die zeit für kleine politik ist vorbei.
 schon das nächste jahrhundert
 bringt den kampf um die erdherrschaft."
 - friedrich nietzsche
 
spamtraps: madduck.bo...@madduck.net
# /etc/X11/xorg.conf (xorg X Window System server configuration file)

Section "ServerFlags"
Option  "DontZap" "yes"
Option  "AllowDeactivateGrabs" "yes"
Option  "AllowClosedownGrabs" "yes"
EndSection

Section "Files"
ModulePath  "/usr/local/lib/xorg/modules,/usr/lib/xorg/modules"
EndSection

Section "Monitor"
Identifier  "Acer AL922[0]"
Option  "PreferredMode" "1280x1024x75.00"
Option  "Enable" "true"
EndSection

Section "Monitor"
Identifier  "Acer AL922[1]"
Option  "PreferredMode" "1280x1024x75.00"
Option  "Enable" "true"
Option  "Primary" "true"
EndSection

Section "Monitor"
Identifier  "MRM B18XA"
#HorizSync   24-80
#VertRefresh 30-60
# 1280x1024 @ 75.00 Hz (GTF) hsync: 80.17 kHz; pclk: 138.54 MHz
Modeline"1280x1024x75.00"  138.54  1280 1368 1504 1728  1024 1025 
1028 1069  -HSync +Vsync
Option  "PreferredMode" "1280x1024x75.00"
Option  "Enable" "true"
Option  "RightOf" "DVI-1"
EndSection

Section "Device"
Identifier  "Radeon 9250"
Driver  "radeon"
BusID   "PCI:0:12:0"
Option  "Monitor-DVI-0" "Acer AL922[0]"
EndSection

Section "Device"
Identifier  "Radeon 9200"
Driver  "radeon"
BusID   "PCI:1:0:0"
Option  "Monitor-DVI-1" "Acer AL922[1]"
Option  "Monitor-VGA-1" "MRM B18XA"
EndSection

Section "Screen"
Identifier  "ScreenLeft"
Device  "Radeon 9250"
DefaultDepth24
SubSection "Display"
Depth   24
EndSubSection
EndSection

Section "Screen"
Identifier  "ScreenRight"
Device  "Radeon 9200"
DefaultDepth24
SubSection "Display"
Depth   24
EndSubSection
EndSection

Section "ServerLayout"
Identifier  "Default Layout"
Screen0 "ScreenLeft"
Screen1 "ScreenRight" RightOf "ScreenLeft"
EndSection

Section "Extensions"
Option "Composite" "Enable"
Option "RENDER" "true"
Option "DAMAGE" "true"
EndSection


Xorg.0.log.gz
Description: Binary data


digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg