Composite and damage status
Egbert Eich
eich at pdx.freedesktop.org
Wed May 12 07:11:30 PDT 2004
Keith Packard writes:
>
> Around 11 o'clock on May 11, Egbert Eich wrote:
>
> > - Does that mean we don't have to 'fix' XAA any more for composite?
>
> Correct. "fixing" XAA would still be a good idea, but it's not required.
> Using the 'shim' layer causes duplicate allocation of GCs, Pictures and a
> lot of extra region manipulation. Functional, but sub-optimal.
>
:-(((
> > - Will we 'automatically' get offscreen fb storage of COMPOSITE
> > windows doing this? XAA can do offscreen pixmaps. If a wrapping
> > layer makes a lower layer believe that these windows are really
> > pixmaps it should work. (I have to admit I've never looked at
> > the BS code).
>
> That would have happened in any case as the rendering is directed at
> pixmaps. The shim, however, eliminates the window entirely from the DDX's
> viewpoint, so rendering appears to be directed solely at pixmaps.
>
OK. Then you have to tell the DDX in some way what is 'on screen' and
what is 'off screen' I suppose. I don't see how this will work
with the XAA implementation as this uses the drawable type to decide
where the data goes. Windows - from an XAA point of view - are always
'on screen' Pixmaps can either live in offscreen fb memory or in main
memory at the XAA level's discretion.
Egbert.
More information about the xserver
mailing list