On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Ian Romanick wrote: > D. Hageman wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Ian Romanick wrote: > > > >>How do we want to handle the case where a user changes video cards? > >>Some of the parameters are likely to be generic, but a lot will be very > >>device specific. The issue here is that the set of available parameters > >>will change. A releated issue is when the set of availble parameters > >>change from one driver release to another. So, do we want to key > >>options on hardware device, screen (in the X sense), or something else? > >> The answer to this question will likely dictate how we handle multi-head. > > > > The more I play around with this in my head the more I lean towards keying > > to the device. The screen is a very generic term and it is supposed to be > > that way for the abstraction of X11 to work. It however does not lend > > itself to specific driver tweaking ... hence why the option parameters go > > in the "Device" section. > > What would we use as the device key, then? Would this match the > device's name from the XF86Config file?
It would have to as no other keying would be reasonable or at least none that I can think of at the momment. > There are a few odd corner cases that we need to make sure and get > right the first time. User's changing cards and multi-head cards (even > though we don't support direct rendering on them now) are the two big ones > that I can think of. The way I see some of this is that we just don't have the capability of being super smart about some of this. If a person changes a card then it would indeed invalidate the DRI configuration if it isn't the same variety of card. I don't think that in and of itself is an unreasonable expection. It would be nice to be able to provide some feedback to the user and claim that they have done something screwy. Part of this endeavor should standardize at least the basic configuration options so at least the configuration should be ... reasonably unusable if a card was switched. On a multi-head box the device names should be different so we should be convered there, right? > I'm coming to conclusion more the more I think about it. I really can't > come up with a good, real-world case to argue for > application-then-device. Most of the cases where you'd want the > application at the top level could be handled by putting a '<device > id="*">' around it. Sounds good - I think I am right there along beside on that one. Let me mention as a footnote that I will be out of town starting tomorrow evening. I have to make a quick trip over the big blue pond to see some friends so after tonight I won't be taking part in this discussion until early next week. -- //========================================================\\ || D. Hageman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || \\========================================================// ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
