On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 11:24:10AM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
> >>So, what happens if I have four identical video cards in my system?
> >
> > why would you want different configs for them?
>
> There are probably as many different reasons as there are different
> people that have such configurati
Philip Brown wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 10:52:34PM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
Philip Brown wrote:
So, why not do it by PCI vendor/devid ? That sort of information is visible
from the DRI level, I believe. I think its just another Xserver internal
call, isnt it?
So, what happens if I hav
On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 01:35:25AM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 10:52:34PM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
> > Philip Brown wrote:
> > > So, why not do it by PCI vendor/devid ? That sort of information is visible
> > > from the DRI level, I believe. I think its just another Xserv
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 10:52:34PM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
> Philip Brown wrote:
> > So, why not do it by PCI vendor/devid ? That sort of information is visible
> > from the DRI level, I believe. I think its just another Xserver internal
> > call, isnt it?
>
> So, what happens if I have four
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Philip Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 05:55:55PM -0600, D. Hageman wrote:
> > > So, why not do it by PCI vendor/devid ? That sort of information is visible
> > > from the DRI level, I believe. I think its just another Xserver internal
> > > call, isnt it?
> >
> > I
Philip Brown wrote:
So, why not do it by PCI vendor/devid ? That sort of information is visible
from the DRI level, I believe. I think its just another Xserver internal
call, isnt it?
So, what happens if I have four identical video cards in my system?
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 05:55:55PM -0600, D. Hageman wrote:
> > So, why not do it by PCI vendor/devid ? That sort of information is visible
> > from the DRI level, I believe. I think its just another Xserver internal
> > call, isnt it?
>
> I thought about PCI vendors/devid ... problem with that
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Philip Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 02:00:01PM -0600, D. Hageman wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Philip Brown wrote:
> > > I think this is a much cleaner overall design.
> > > After all, you dont open /dev/fbX and tell it,
> > > "I want you to be associated with t
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 02:00:01PM -0600, D. Hageman wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Philip Brown wrote:
> > I think this is a much cleaner overall design.
> > After all, you dont open /dev/fbX and tell it,
> > "I want you to be associated with this video card now..."
>
> The stuff that I talk ab
On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Philip Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 01:24:26PM -0600, D. Hageman wrote:
> >... We played around with using Screens and driver
> > names, but in the end we were looking at keying off the device identifier.
> > At this time I still believe that is the best thing to
On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 01:24:26PM -0600, D. Hageman wrote:
>... We played around with using Screens and driver
> names, but in the end we were looking at keying off the device identifier.
> At this time I still believe that is the best thing to use, but we have
> no way at this time of grabbin
Felix and I have been slowing working on a more solidified design of
the DRI configuration idea that has been discussed on this list a couple
of times. During our last public discussion in which we were talking
about configuration file formats we attempted to find a item in which to
key every
12 matches
Mail list logo
