On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:51:35 +0100
Luc Verhaegen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DVO is not specialised, it's more like the most common bus-layout output
> devices tend to support. The output devices used now will already adhere
> to that, and there's a good chance that the current design uses a 12bit
> bus already.
Hmm.. I must take a closer look at DVO then.
Thanks for the hint and the explenations.
> All depends on the availability and price of such submodules.
> Availability was the main problem with input/output submodules in the
> past and this is where opengraphics can provide a real difference. Since
> this is a fully open design, it might even allow people to create
> submodules themselves and allow for the most amazing output
> combinations ever.
Ack
> Not everyone will need all the devices summed up in the BOM. If one can
> easily get a duallink module (just a sil178 on a daughterboard) for an
> acceptable price, why provide duallink from the getgo?
Because the price for an add on card is about the double/tripple
from the additional price we'd pay for a dual link on board.
I have the impression that there is a demand for dual link,
that's why i'm promoting it.
> About TV-out not being neccessary for everyone, this is imho a
> non-issue, as a TV encoder usually is able to do RGB + H/VSync, making
> it a good secondary ramdac. A second or even third TV encoder would,
> with the DVO headers, then become a possibility, for those who are so
> inclined.
Hmm.. good argument.
> It's probably way too late for this sort of thing to happen for OGD,
> but it would've been real handy for driver testing and even hardware
> design.
Dont think so, but i dont exactly know how far the schema/layout
is.
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)
