On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Jonathan Morton <[email protected]> wrote: > On 17 June 2010 10:48, Huang, FrankR <[email protected]> wrote: >> What I want to ask is that does driver need handle these all? I think it is >> a huge burden for the driver to judge. Why the server gave such parameters >> to driver? Maybe one of this special condition can make the driver rendering >> result fails, just as geode. And the most important thing is that, if the >> driver found it can not do that rendering, it is to late for put the >> rendering back to Xserver SW method. > > I suspect that EXA's designers didn't consider hardware quite as > simple as Geode when working out the API. > > In fact, I believe they were thinking of the Intel GMA core series, > which requires some setup before use, and is not normally considered a > high-performance solution, but is fairly flexible. Most PC-style > hardware is either of that type, or considerably more capable (such as > your X1200), or is considered too old to be worth implementing the > Composite function for (eg. original Matrox Mystique). >
It was designed with basic 3D engines that support multi-texture in mind. This covers most basic GL and DX hardware. > An unfortunate fact of EXA is that you need to throughly understand > XRender's requirements when implementing the Composite function. This > is fairly poorly documented. It's fairly easy to match up to 3D engines, but for cards that implement subsets of the 3D functionality in the 2D engine, it's a bit more complicated. Alex > > - Jonathan Morton > _______________________________________________ > [email protected]: X.Org development > Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel > Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel > _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
