Re: Looking for some answers.

2004-12-20 Thread Alex Deucher
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 10:53:26 -0400, Austin Yuan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 04:54:20AM +0800, Alex Deucher wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:35:42 +, Ian Molton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > > > Is MergedFB going to replace xinerama in the long run? > > >

Re: Looking for some answers.

2004-12-20 Thread Mike Mestnik
This defenatly belongs on another Xrelated list. --- Austin Yuan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 04:54:20AM +0800, Alex Deucher wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:35:42 +, Ian Molton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > > > Is MergedFB going to replace xinerama in

Re: Looking for some answers.

2004-12-19 Thread Ryan Underwood
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 10:35:42AM +, Ian Molton wrote: > Hi. > > Is MergedFB going to replace xinerama in the long run? For multi-head chips, probably. Even in that case, Xinerama is still useful as a more generic multi-head solution that works regardless of the underlying hardware. -- R

Re: Looking for some answers.

2004-12-19 Thread Ryan Underwood
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 03:31:13PM -0800, Mike Mestnik wrote: > > > why doesnt radeon xinerama use mergedFB techniques to acieve its ends ? > > > The only big hurdel is wather or not the heads share enuff videomemory for > the entire FB. That, and not necessarily all cards support the framebuff

Re: Looking for some answers.

2004-12-19 Thread Austin Yuan
On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 04:54:20AM +0800, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:35:42 +, Ian Molton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi. > > > > Is MergedFB going to replace xinerama in the long run? > > > > maybe. they will probably co-exist for the forseeable future. > "regular" mul

Re: Looking for some answers.

2004-12-19 Thread Mike Mestnik
--- Alex Deucher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:56:42 +, Ian Molton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mike Mestnik wrote: > > > > >>if not, will xinerama be able to use 3D / Xv properly on radeon > (9000) > > >>in the near future? > > > > > > I don't think there are any pla

Re: Looking for some answers.

2004-12-18 Thread Alex Deucher
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:56:42 +, Ian Molton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Mestnik wrote: > > >>if not, will xinerama be able to use 3D / Xv properly on radeon (9000) > >>in the near future? > > > > I don't think there are any plans to support 3D for xinerama. > > Is there a technical probl

Re: Looking for some answers.

2004-12-18 Thread Ian Molton
Mike Mestnik wrote: if not, will xinerama be able to use 3D / Xv properly on radeon (9000) in the near future? I don't think there are any plans to support 3D for xinerama. Is there a technical problem or is it just lack of interest? --- SF email

Re: Looking for some answers.

2004-12-17 Thread Mike Mestnik
--- Ian Molton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi. > > Is MergedFB going to replace xinerama in the long run? > MergedFB only workes on hardware that supports it, where both heads can share the same continious framebuffer. This can only be done if the DACs(heads) share the same video memory. > i

Re: Looking for some answers.

2004-12-17 Thread Alex Deucher
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:35:42 +, Ian Molton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi. > > Is MergedFB going to replace xinerama in the long run? > maybe. they will probably co-exist for the forseeable future. "regular" multi-head allows you do have two independant X servers while mergedfb always cre

Looking for some answers.

2004-12-17 Thread Ian Molton
Hi. Is MergedFB going to replace xinerama in the long run? if not, will xinerama be able to use 3D / Xv properly on radeon (9000) in the near future? why doesnt radeon xinerama use mergedFB techniques to acieve its ends ? --- SF email is sponsor