Re: New XF68_FBDev

quoted

quoted

Oops, I meant `Ryuichi's latest changes for mach64im.c'. I start to wonder
whether I really need them, since these things worked fine before, too. Or am I
getting insane and talking nonsenses?

 Excuse me, what are "them" exactly ?

The byteorder stuff in mach64im.c. I don't see a difference with or without
them.

 Sorry, but I don't believe that different data give the same result.
I think you can see difference for example by experimentally changeing to
    if ( 1 /* (alu != MIX_SRC) || ((planemask & PMask) != PMask)*/ ) {
	mach64ImageWriteHW(x, y, w, h, psrc, pwidth, px, py,
			   alu, planemask);
and executing XPutImage function.

As a matter of fact, I added byte/bit reordering because I didn't any
documents about Mach64 registers other than XFree86 code. Now that I
have got the documents(thanks!), I understand all should be done is
simply setting host control register appropriately, for at least
Mach64VT or above. I intend to rewrite mach64im.c faster and more
efficiently.

Never trust mail ordering.

 Indeed. Original messages are coming several days after followups
these days. It is difficult for me to understand what are discussed.
I wonder I subscribe the list wrong way.

BTW, I think it is better to revert this to the original
 because mach64MaxX and mach64MaxY are not sizes but coordinates.
+    mach64VirtX = mach64MaxX = mach64InfoRec.virtualX;
+    mach64VirtY = mach64MaxY = mach64InfoRec.virtualY;

Regards,

Ryuichi Oikawa
roikawa@rr.iij4u.or.jp

[[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]]
[[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to  Cc linuxppc-dev  if your ]]
[[ reply is of general interest. To unsubscribe from linuxppc-dev, send ]]
[[ the message 'unsubscribe' to linuxppc-dev-request@lists.linuxppc.org ]]