On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 12:31:18PM +, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
I don't really agree here, modes are for the outgoing resolution, not
the input viewport. it would be far simpler to keep this simple
acceptation, and add a new keyword for
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 12:31:18PM +, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
I don't really agree here, modes are for the outgoing resolution, not
the input viewport. it would be far simpler to keep this simple
On Fre, 2003-03-07 at 14:48, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
I wonder how the driver knows what the laptop display size is ? do you
specify or does the monitor tell the driver about it with ddc ?
The driver gets it from the graphics chip.
DDC info on
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 12:27:41PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:41:50AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
I strongly advocate that you take in account such separation of the
outgoing resolution and the framebuffer size in any future configuration
scheme.
We already
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 07:01:35PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 12:27:41PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:41:50AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
I strongly advocate that you take in account such separation of the
outgoing resolution and the framebuffer
Jonathan,
could you also post your XF86Config file? I have some ideas on how
to extend this. It's still kind of a hack, but here goes:
add an option to the radeon driver, say MergedFB or something like
that. when that option is set to TRUE, it would skip the sections of
code that you have
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 09:46:40PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
2) a way to tell the framebuffer/viewport sizes for each supported
resolution, something like :
SubSection Display
Mode 1024x768
Viewport 0 0 1024 768
Viewport 0 0 800 600
Viewport 0 0 640 480
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 11:28:24PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 10:34:20AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 04:19:37PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
Are you speaking about the current 4.3.0 or the stuff you are working on ?
What I was working on.
Ok,
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 10:31:56AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 11:28:24PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 10:34:20AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 04:19:37PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
Are you speaking about the current 4.3.0 or the
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 10:34:20AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 04:19:37PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
Are you speaking about the current 4.3.0 or the stuff you are working on ?
What I was working on.
Ok, ...
I take it, there will be a 4.4.0 before 5.0 ?
Most likely.
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 10:52:08AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 04:19:37PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:04:06PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Are you speaking about the current 4.3.0 or the stuff you are working on ?
What I was working on.
BTW, is the
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 04:19:37PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
Are you speaking about the current 4.3.0 or the stuff you are working on ?
What I was working on.
Ok, ...
I take it, there will be a 4.4.0 before 5.0 ?
Well, i am not sure i follow you completely here, but my interrest in
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 04:19:37PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:04:06PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Are you speaking about the current 4.3.0 or the stuff you are working on ?
What I was working on.
BTW, is the stuff you were working on accessible on a CVS branch or
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
That said, another thing that would be nice, would be the possibility to
specify one display section for every depth, instead of just copying it
for each supported depth. Do many people in these times of 64+Mo of
onboard memory specify different
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:11:34AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
BTW, Dawes, what are the plans for post 4.3.0 XFree86 ? This kind of
thing would most assuredly go into the thinking about 5.x, but some of
the stuff here, and about the dual-head/one FB (which would allow DRI on
dual head cards) could
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:59:48AM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:11:34AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
BTW, Dawes, what are the plans for post 4.3.0 XFree86 ? This kind of
thing would most assuredly go into the thinking about 5.x, but some of
the stuff here, and about the
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:06:35PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 06:27:20PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:59:48AM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:11:34AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
BTW, Dawes, what are the plans for post 4.3.0
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:04:06PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:06:35PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 06:27:20PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:59:48AM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:11:34AM +0100, Sven
On Fre, 2003-02-28 at 21:04, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:06:35PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 06:27:20PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
BTW, is it normal that SDL games requesting 640x480 try to set it even
if i did only specify 1024x768 in the monitor
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:40:18PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:25:21PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:27:50PM +0200, Yitzhak Bar Geva wrote:
Greatly encouraged by your response, thanks!
Someone reported that X works with the multi-head
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 05:12:32PM -0600, jkjellman wrote:
Absolutely right, but ...
This can be done if two servers are used. The point I was making earlier in
this thread was that used hacked kernels and servers are a bad thing. If
two consoles (including keyboards) could be operated on
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 10:47:39PM +, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
How do you imagine this would work when both head are using a
shared accel (XAA or DRI) engine ?
I thought that the whole point of the kernel DRI was to stop multiple apps
from fighting over the hardware. If the X server
Hi, all
Long time I maintain Linux 2.4.XX kernel tree , wich support multiple
consoles.
Ground priciple:
linus tree kernel has 64 virtual consoles == virtual terminal.
All 64 accessible by one user.
Tuned 2.4.XX-backstreet-ruby kernel has same 64 virtual consoles but one
user
can use only
Yitzhak,
I too am interested in this. I have only seen
":hacks" that require two X servers (one normal and one modified) plus a
modified kernel. This is not a very pretty sight to say the
least.
Please copy myself if you receive any "private"
replies as it sounds like we are looking for
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Yitzhak Bar Geva wrote:
What is the status of simultaneous multiple video console operation for
full multiuser X on one machine?
Someone reported that X works with the multi-head console support
in Linux 2.5 kernels.
As far as I am concerned, that is the right way to go:
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Multiple video consoles
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Yitzhak Bar Geva wrote:
What is the status of simultaneous multiple video console operation
for
full multiuser X on one machine?
Someone reported that X works with the multi-head console support
in Linux 2.5 kernels.
As far as I
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 06:40:07PM +, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Yitzhak Bar Geva wrote:
What is the status of simultaneous multiple video console operation for
full multiuser X on one machine?
Someone reported that X works with the multi-head console support
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:27:50PM +0200, Yitzhak Bar Geva wrote:
Greatly encouraged by your response, thanks!
Someone reported that X works with the multi-head console support
in Linux 2.5 kernels.
I did some searching for multi-head consoles under 2.5 kernel, but
didn't see anything. I
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Multiple video consoles
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:27:50PM +0200, Yitzhak Bar Geva wrote:
Greatly encouraged by your response, thanks!
Someone reported that X works with the multi-head console support
in Linux 2.5 kernels.
I
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:25:21PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:27:50PM +0200, Yitzhak Bar Geva wrote:
Greatly encouraged by your response, thanks!
Someone reported that X works with the multi-head console support
in Linux 2.5 kernels.
I did some searching for
30 matches
Mail list logo
