xf86-video-intel Textured Video vs Video Overlay

[Keith Packard]

On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 14:27 -0400, Ken Mandelberg wrote:
> Tristan Willy wrote:
> >  As I understand it, the intel driver provides video overlay if the
> > chip supports it (no overlay in the 965). This is the only XV port
> > that will not experience tearing, at least until there's a way for the
> > driver to get a cheap vertical retrace signal.
> > 
> 
> 
> If the overlay code only has advantages compared with the textured code, 
> on the hardware that supports it (like the 945), I wonder why the 
> decision was made to make it the second adapter?

Textured video can support multiple players, and the image is visible on
multiple monitors. Plus, it (should) support the Composite extension.

"dumb" applications that just want to show video should get the adapter
with the fewest weird restrictions (at least, that was my thought).

"smart" applications that want better output should be able to figure
out which adapter to use.

-- 
keith.packard at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20070318/f62ccd5f/attachment.pgp>