[Openchrome-users] People interested in debugging XV on the K8M890

[Jon Nettleton]

On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 17:49 +0100, pr0ners wrote:
> Re: Re: People interested in debugging XV on the	K8M890
> If the focus is taken off the firstxv window, the terminal displays the following after the output above :
> 200 frames in 10 seconds; 20.0000 fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 0 seconds; inf fps
> 200 frames in 1 seconds; 200.0000 fps
> ad infinitum
> 
Now we are getting somewhere.  I have changed the output of the attached
testxv.c so we can see if XGetGeometry or XvShmPutImage is failing.  I
am thinking the latter.  From there we can start doing some serious
debugging.  If it is neither of those you will see those two function
calls printed on the screen quite a bit.

Jon
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: testxv.c
Type: text/x-csrc
Size: 8542 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wiki.openchrome.org/pipermail/openchrome-users/attachments/20061209/d7510d49/testxv-0001.bin