On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 10:33 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Now, I agree that cutting the vram in half, and reserving both halves
to the "offscreen" needs to each head may help avoiding mode switch on
one head busting things used by whoever works on the second head, but
I'm not sure that fits the DRM needs very well..
It probably doesn't, but it seems to me like that's all that can be done
with the current fbdev API.
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 12:51 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 03:47 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
quoted
There's also the case with Matrox Millennium I/II cards. They must place
the visible frame buffer so that no line crosses the boundary of memory
banks. [...]
That still doesn't require any changes on mode switches as long as the
pitch stays the same, does it?
So it alls end up to -> mode switch has to bust memory layout, [...]
Why? All that a mode switch changes is how the current screen surface is
scanned out. It shouldn't have any implicit effect on memory allocation
or even contents.
[...] For that to work, it also requires proper arbitration though, so we
may end up again limit that functionality to clients using the DRM for
artbitration and lock everything when some guy like DirectFB enters the
picture.
I was thinking about something like that as well, may be the only way to
preserve the current fbdev API and offer something more sophisticated.
quoted
quoted
and because
it seems that directFB has only been tested on little endian machines
(damn them !) and thus doesn't understand the problem with swapper on
framebuffer access).
Actually people do use it on big-endian systems but since neither the
mach64, ati128 or radeon drivers play with the swapper settings I can only
assume that they haven't been tested very extensively.
You are wrong here, all of those 3 drivers do play with the swapper
setting, [...]
I think he was referring to the DirectFB drivers.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer
Libre software enthusiast | http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 00:21 -0500, Michel Dänzer wrote:
quoted
quoted
Actually people do use it on big-endian systems but since neither the
mach64, ati128 or radeon drivers play with the swapper settings I can only
assume that they haven't been tested very extensively.
You are wrong here, all of those 3 drivers do play with the swapper
setting, [...]
I think he was referring to the DirectFB drivers.
Well, do they "revert" it after atyfb/aty128fb/radeonfb set it then ?
it's definitely set on mode switch.
Ben.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 05:31:16PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 00:21 -0500, Michel Dänzer wrote:
quoted
quoted
quoted
Actually people do use it on big-endian systems but since neither the
mach64, ati128 or radeon drivers play with the swapper settings I can only
assume that they haven't been tested very extensively.
You are wrong here, all of those 3 drivers do play with the swapper
setting, [...]
I think he was referring to the DirectFB drivers.
Exactly. I prorably should have mentioned that explicitly.
Well, do they "revert" it after atyfb/aty128fb/radeonfb set it then ?
it's definitely set on mode switch.
The point is that there can be offscreen surfaces with different depth
than the fbdev surface.
--
Ville Syrjälä
syrjala@sci.fi
http://www.sci.fi/~syrjala/
On Wednesday 16 March 2005 09:09, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 05:31:16PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
quoted
Well, do they "revert" it after atyfb/aty128fb/radeonfb set it then ?
it's definitely set on mode switch.
The point is that there can be offscreen surfaces with different depth
than the fbdev surface.
_Will_ be. Otherwise GL and Render performance drops through the floor.
- ajax
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 11:48 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Wednesday 16 March 2005 09:09, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 05:31:16PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
quoted
Well, do they "revert" it after atyfb/aty128fb/radeonfb set it then ?
it's definitely set on mode switch.
The point is that there can be offscreen surfaces with different depth
than the fbdev surface.
_Will_ be. Otherwise GL and Render performance drops through the floor.
Yes, but again, GL/DRI knows how to play with the swapper, that is not
my point. Looks like people here prefer arguing for the sake of it
rather than trying to make progress...
I think I'll just decide something randomly in radeonfb and let folks
cope with it.
Ben.