On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:12:24AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Mit, 2003-02-26 at 21:11, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > [...] because the DRI is just rendering to the framebuffer, it doesn't > > know if you are displaying it or not, and doesn't even care. The only > > issue is with size limits of the 3D engine, like Michel said, with the > > Radeon 3D engine being limited to 2Kx2K, which would mean a maximum > > resolution of 1024x768 or 1280x1024 if you stapple the screen > > vertically. I don't know the radeon specs, but i guess it should be > > possible to work around this by changin the base address, at least in > > the vertical stapling case, in the horizontal case, screen stride may > > become a problem. > > But then it's no longer a shared framebuffer in so far as the 3D parts > need to support it explicitly.
Well, sure ... That said, i am not sure i agree with you here, i don't really know how the ATI cards work, but as i see it, you have the framebuffer and its screen stride (is this one also limited to 2048, or only the coordinates), and then you have the window you are rendering unto, i have the feeling that, provided the screen stride can be big enough, it would be enough to set the screen base to the top left corner of the 3D window, and then render into it. This would be part of the context information, or whatever. We would still have a limit of a maximum 2048x2048 OpenGL window, but well, if your hardware can't handle more, there is no chance to do more. This would allow this scheme with minimal support from the 3D parts. Friendly, Sven Luther ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Scholarships for Techies! Can't afford IT training? All 2003 ictp students receive scholarships. Get hands-on training in Microsoft, Cisco, Sun, Linux/UNIX, and more. www.ictp.com/training/sourceforge.asp _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
