> From: Adam Jackson <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 16:21:02 -0500 > > On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 21:32 +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 21:27:47 +0100 (CET) > > > From: Mark Kettenis <[email protected]> > > >=20 > > > > From: Adam Jackson <[email protected]> > > > > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:56:33 -0500 > > > >=20 > > > > DMTModes is what xf86DefaultModes was always meant to be. > > >=20 > > > I'd say xf86DefaultModes is a better variable name than DMTModes for > > > an exported symbol though. > > If it makes you feel better, we can probably stop exporting it. None of > the open drivers are using either symbol. I think fglrx does, but the > thing about MIT-licensed code is...
Somewhat. > > Hmm, looking at this a bit more, is it really ok to include the > > "reduced blanking" modes in xf86DefaultModes? > > Yes. We filter the default mode pool based on the monitor's > capabilities. For non-randrful drivers, see xf86CheckModeForMonitor; > for randrful drivers see xf86ValidateModesReducedBlanking. (Yes, these > paths should be made less redundant.) Thanks for the expanation. _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
