Re: Dual-head without XINERAMA ?
Billy Biggs wrote: http://vektor.ca/bugs/atidriver/xpdy2.log includes the lines screen #0: dimensions:2560x1024 pixels (867x347 millimeters) resolution:75x75 dots per inch is that any use ? Not in general. I use the vidmode extension to get the current resolution, since my users often make 720x480 modelines and such things and switch to that (using ctrl-alt-+) to play video. However, I use the geometry information to calculate the pixel aspect ratio to use. Erm, I might be mistaken, but the geometry information has nothing to do with the current display mode. If I have a screen of 1024x768, 260x195mm according to xdpyinfo, I still receive the same values after switching, say, to 1280x768 (which has a totally different aspect ratio)... hence, geometry is static and obviously independent of the current display mode... So in this case, vidmode tells me our resolution is 1280x1024, and X tells me that we're not using XINERAMA and that our geometry is 867x347 millimeters. Makes sense? Not really. That xdpyinfo output is strange - 2560x1024 looks like two screens of 1280x1024 aside each other; is this a radeon machine using Alex' driver? Seems it's not the current one as it reports that Xinerama is not supported. Thomas -- Thomas Winischhofer Vienna/Austria thomas AT winischhofer DOT net *** http://www.winischhofer.net/ twini AT xfree86 DOT org ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Dual-head without XINERAMA ?
Thomas Winischhofer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Billy Biggs wrote: http://vektor.ca/bugs/atidriver/xpdy2.log includes the lines screen #0: dimensions:2560x1024 pixels (867x347 millimeters) resolution:75x75 dots per inch is that any use ? Not in general. I use the vidmode extension to get the current resolution, since my users often make 720x480 modelines and such things and switch to that (using ctrl-alt-+) to play video. However, I use the geometry information to calculate the pixel aspect ratio to use. Erm, I might be mistaken, but the geometry information has nothing to do with the current display mode. If I have a screen of 1024x768, 260x195mm according to xdpyinfo, I still receive the same values after switching, say, to 1280x768 (which has a totally different aspect ratio)... hence, geometry is static and obviously independent of the current display mode... Calculating a pixel aspect ratio depends on the current resolution of the display, and the geometry information of the display. You're correct, the goemetry information is static, but the resolution isn't, that's why I have to use the vidmode extension to get the current resolution. So in this case, vidmode tells me our resolution is 1280x1024, and X tells me that we're not using XINERAMA and that our geometry is 867x347 millimeters. Makes sense? Not really. That xdpyinfo output is strange - 2560x1024 looks like two screens of 1280x1024 aside each other; is this a radeon machine using Alex' driver? Seems it's not the current one as it reports that Xinerama is not supported. Correct, I meant what I'm doing makes sense. The result does not. This is the ATI firegl driver and it does not seem to support XINERAMA. There are actually two screens both of size 1280x1024 and this is why my code comes up with an incorrect pixel aspect ratio. So, does it now make sense to you what I'm doing and why this is so bad? :) Sorry for the poor explanation. -Billy ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Dual-head without XINERAMA ?
It appears that the ati firegl driver does not support xinerama when using its dualhead/mergedfb mode. I'd be happy to add xinerama support for ati's driver. just tell them to release the source ;) I suppose as a work-around you could divide the width by 2 for modes like 2048x768 or 2560x1024, although it might break for users that actually have a display of that size (not that I can think of any). Either that or tell the user to switch to an opensource driver. Alex --- Billy Biggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not really. That xdpyinfo output is strange - 2560x1024 looks like two screens of 1280x1024 aside each other; is this a radeon machine using Alex' driver? Seems it's not the current one as it reports that Xinerama is not supported. Correct, I meant what I'm doing makes sense. The result does not. This is the ATI firegl driver and it does not seem to support XINERAMA. There are actually two screens both of size 1280x1024 and this is why my code comes up with an incorrect pixel aspect ratio. So, does it now make sense to you what I'm doing and why this is so bad? :) Sorry for the poor explanation. -Billy __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Dual-head without XINERAMA ?
Alex Deucher wrote: It appears that the ati firegl driver does not support xinerama when using its dualhead/mergedfb mode. I'd be happy to add xinerama support for ati's driver. just tell them to release the source ;) Hm, I don't recall any required explicit code for Xinerama support in my driver.. (speaking of normal dual head, not MergedFB) The Xinerama extension is initialized after the driver has done its part(s). If the option Xinerama is set, it's being added to the list of extensions, if not - not. Xinerama is fully transparent for the driver... No idea what the ATI folks have done there... seems to be some sort of mergedfb mode, too. Does that piece support normal dual head mode (speak: 2 device sections, 2 screen sections, etc)? Thomas -- Thomas Winischhofer Vienna/Austria thomas AT winischhofer DOT net *** http://www.winischhofer.net/ twini AT xfree86 DOT org ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Dual-head without XINERAMA ?
Thomas Winischhofer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): No idea what the ATI folks have done there... seems to be some sort of mergedfb mode, too. Does that piece support normal dual head mode (speak: 2 device sections, 2 screen sections, etc)? Yes it does, but users always whine and complain when I tell them to use it. -Billy ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Dual-head without XINERAMA ?
--- Thomas Winischhofer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alex Deucher wrote: It appears that the ati firegl driver does not support xinerama when using its dualhead/mergedfb mode. I'd be happy to add xinerama support for ati's driver. just tell them to release the source ;) Hm, I don't recall any required explicit code for Xinerama support in my driver.. (speaking of normal dual head, not MergedFB) The Xinerama extension is initialized after the driver has done its part(s). If the option Xinerama is set, it's being added to the list of extensions, if not - not. Xinerama is fully transparent for the driver... I mean their mergedfb-equivalent mode. Assuming the driver has a mergedfb-equivalent mode, I've never used their drivers. No idea what the ATI folks have done there... seems to be some sort of mergedfb mode, too. Does that piece support normal dual head mode (speak: 2 device sections, 2 screen sections, etc)? Don't know. I've never tried their drivers. Alex __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Dual-head without XINERAMA ?
Billy Biggs wrote: Thomas Winischhofer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): No idea what the ATI folks have done there... seems to be some sort of mergedfb mode, too. Does that piece support normal dual head mode (speak: 2 device sections, 2 screen sections, etc)? Yes it does, but users always whine and complain when I tell them to use it. Frankly, I understand that - mergedfb is way better :) Thomas -- Thomas Winischhofer Vienna/Austria thomas AT winischhofer DOT net http://www.winischhofer.net/ twini AT xfree86 DOT org ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Dual-head without XINERAMA ?
Hey all, I'm looking for some advice about a driver which is in dual-head mode but does not seem to support XINERAMA. This driver is the latest ATI (firegl?) driver. Logs from this server were sent to me by the user: http://vektor.ca/bugs/atidriver/ I'm wondering if there are other drivers that do this, and if anyone knows of a way I could detect this case. The problem is that my application needs geometry information to calculate the pixel aspect ratio. X tells me the geometry is 867mm x 347mm but the vidmode extension tells me the current resolution is 1280x1024, and so my pixel aspect ratio calculation thinks the user is going through an anamorphic lens and they end up with very stretchy looking video. I need to use the vidmode extension because people often switch to a lower resolution to watch video, so I can't just use DisplayWidth/DisplayHeight. Any advice? -Billy ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Dual-head without XINERAMA ?
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Billy Biggs wrote: Hey all, I'm looking for some advice about a driver which is in dual-head mode but does not seem to support XINERAMA. This driver is the latest ATI (firegl?) driver. Logs from this server were sent to me by the user: http://vektor.ca/bugs/atidriver/ I'm wondering if there are other drivers that do this, and if anyone knows of a way I could detect this case. The driver supplied by Matrox has a dual-head mode in one frame-buffer, which I think is similar; I don't know whether it presents XINERAMA. The problem is that my application needs geometry information to calculate the pixel aspect ratio. X tells me the geometry is 867mm x 347mm but the vidmode extension tells me the current resolution is 1280x1024, and so my pixel aspect ratio calculation thinks the user is going through an anamorphic lens and they end up with very stretchy looking video. http://vektor.ca/bugs/atidriver/xpdy2.log includes the lines screen #0: dimensions:2560x1024 pixels (867x347 millimeters) resolution:75x75 dots per inch is that any use ? -- Andrew C. Aitchison Cambridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Dual-head without XINERAMA ?
Andrew C Aitchison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): The problem is that my application needs geometry information to calculate the pixel aspect ratio. X tells me the geometry is 867mm x 347mm but the vidmode extension tells me the current resolution is 1280x1024, and so my pixel aspect ratio calculation thinks the user is going through an anamorphic lens and they end up with very stretchy looking video. http://vektor.ca/bugs/atidriver/xpdy2.log includes the lines screen #0: dimensions:2560x1024 pixels (867x347 millimeters) resolution:75x75 dots per inch is that any use ? Not in general. I use the vidmode extension to get the current resolution, since my users often make 720x480 modelines and such things and switch to that (using ctrl-alt-+) to play video. However, I use the geometry information to calculate the pixel aspect ratio to use. So in this case, vidmode tells me our resolution is 1280x1024, and X tells me that we're not using XINERAMA and that our geometry is 867x347 millimeters. Makes sense? -Billy ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
