On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 10:27:05 -0500
Timothy Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FPGA:
> (1) Xilinx XC3S4000-4FG900C 900-pin FBGA
I guess there is a price reason why you did not choose the biggest FPGA?
> (1) LatticeXP LFXP15E (188 I/O) 256-pin fpBGA (17x17mm)
> Memory:
[...]
> DVI-Out:
> (2) Silicon Image SiI178 64-pin TQFP
Using just 2 SiI178 means that we either have two DVI connectors
with each having single link or one DVI connecter having dual link.
I think some time ago we agreed that we build a card with dual screen.
If that is still valid then that would mean that we limit OGD/OGA
to a certain maximal resolution. As seeing the trend in ever growing
display sizes i definitly would not recommend that.
[...]
>
> DVI-In:
[...]
What is the reason in having DVI-In ? The parts list is not
too long, so i suppose it's quite cheap. But given that we
need to safe as much money and only implement the features
that a supstantial amount of people are going to use, i would
vote to not support for DVI-In.
> Analog-Out:
[...]
Looks ok, just that it looks like one screen only.
> Power Supply (x3):
[...]
Looks ok too.
>
> TV-out:
[...]
Huge list of parts. I would raise the same concerns as above
with the DVI-In if i wouldnt know that there is a huge
demand for a fully OSS supported graphics card with tv out.
Other than that, i didn't spot any connector that looks
like an expansion connector or anything. Is this not
yet decided?
Attila Kinali
--
wer soviel schoggi isst, kann sowieso nicht dumm sein ;-)
-- Sandra
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
