On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Dave Airlie <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Alex Deucher <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Dave Airlie <[email protected]> wrote: >>> (forgot list first time I sent this). >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Keith Packard <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Dave Airlie <[email protected]> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Keith Packard <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Dave Airlie <[email protected]> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes thats going to be the standard on switchable GPU machines, two >>>>>>> masters >>>>>>> and the ability to jump between them. In that case max master is one, >>>>>>> and you'd >>>>>>> have to set the provider roles. If maxmaster > 1 then xinerama >>>>>>> emulation is available. >>>>>> >>>>>> In those machines, isn't the limitation that only one of them can drive >>>>>> the LVDS panel at a time? Can't you have the internal GPU driving the >>>>>> LVDS while the external GPU drives other outputs? >>>>> >>>>> Yes but you don't configure it in xinerama mode for that, there are >>>>> mux and muxless configurations. >>>> >>>> I think I understand what the hardware does now, just trying to figure >>>> out how to provide a reasonable description of that to applications >>>> while not just providing a big 'muxless/muxed' switch, which seems >>>> restricted to precisely how the hardware that we have works today. >>>> >>>>> In mux configuration, you switch the mux between GPUs when the master >>>>> is switched. >>>> >>>> Right, the mux just rewires things so that the other GPU is hooked up to >>>> the LVDS. I'd expect the LVDS outputs to reflect a suitable connection >>>> status for these changes. >>>> >>>> The only question is how you drive the mux switch. Is this switch >>>> selectable per-output? Or is is global? And, how do we label which >>>> outputs are affected by a global switch? >>> >>> We don't really know with 100% certainty since the specs for all these >>> things are closed. We've done a lot of RE work, and it mostly appears >>> to be a single global switch that turns any connected outputs. There is >>> a table in the intel bios which can tell you about which outputs are muxed >>> etc, but this isn't always present. Again we also have laptops that have >>> a mux but don't expose this table, as they only have the MUX so the >>> BIOS can pick IGP/discrete for Vista, and Windows 7 operates in >>> muxless mode. >>> >>> The current problem is I'm not sure any OS exposes muxless and mux >>> in one OS. Mac OSX always uses muxed, Vista the same, and I think >>> Windows 7 always exposes muxless if the bios reports optimus support >>> or the AMD equivalent. >> >> All new AMD systems are muxless and I suspect most other vendors are >> doing the same. I'm wondering if there is any reason to bother with >> proper muxed support at all? We should be able to treat muxed systems >> as muxless just fine. >> > > Apple hw is the only one I know off persisting with a muxed design, > > Whether it buys us much supporting the mux on it I'm not sure, I've no > idea to what degree they power down the intel hardware on it.
I doubt they can do anything more than on the PC side otherwise the PC side probably would have done it too. Alex _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
