RandR 1.2 feedback

[Andy Ritger]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Keith Packard wrote:

> On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 13:58 -0800, Andy Ritger wrote:
>> Thanks, Keith.  Fair enough.
>>
>> I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on some of these points.
>>
>> I think the RandR 1.2 spec is workable as-is, so I'll just plan on going
>> with that.  I'll look at wiring up the NVIDIA driver to RandR 1.2.
>
> Cool. We're busy making the RandR 1.2 support shared between Intel and
> Radeon drivers and then moving that to the common layer; let me know if
> you're interested in working with that code, it will also support
> startup configuration through the config file and will work with older X
> servers that do not have RandR 1.2 support.

Yeah, I'll be interested to see what that code looks like.  I think to
ensure the most flexibility, I'll want the NVIDIA X driver to be able
to hook the RandR 1.2 requests at a very high level, but I'll look into
the code and see.

>> However, note that NVIDIA's OpenGL implementation works fine within
>> Xinerama today.  I don't believe the current Xinerama implementation in
>> the X server precludes direct rendering OpenGL.  Any problems we've had
>> implementing OpenGL within the current Xinerama implementation have
>> really been problems with our OpenGL implementation, rather than problems
>> interacting with the Xinerama implementation.
>
> I have to support heterogeneous GPU environments, which the current
> implementation precludes. For homogenous GPU systems, things are much
> easier...

Agreed that heterogeneous GPU environments are more challenging.
It still seems like an OpenGL implementation problem, though.

>> Anyway, it sounds like there is a lot of interesting stuff to discuss
>> wrt the Xinerama implementation and how to either replace or improve that.
>> I'll leave the topic alone for now so we can focus on RandR 1.2.
>
> Sounds like we're go for launch then; I'll finish up the DIX
> implemetation and look forward to seeing it work on your video cards
> soon.
>
> Thanks for your help; nice to know we aren't locking anyone out of
> important card features yet.

I'm still a little bit nervous about some of the corner cases, but I
think for the common case it's workable.  I'll try to dig into the code
soon.  The master branch is the right place to track the changes, now?
(I'm still a git noob)

Thanks,
- Andy


> -- 
> keith.packard at intel.com
>