On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 11:12 +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote: > On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 10:46 +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 09:26 +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote: > > > On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 23:53 +0100, Brice Goglin wrote: > > > > Xavier Bestel wrote: > > > > > Oh, and also I had to invert the adapters order (texturevideo in #0 > > > > > and > > > > > overlay in #1), otherwise no way to test it. But as it seems to use a > > > > > bit more CPU, maybe the order should be dependant on wether composite > > > > > is > > > > > activated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > mplayer -vo xv:port=74 did the trick here (xvinfo says that the textured > > > > adaptor is #1 with ports 74-89). > > > > > > Ah, silly me ! I read the manpage too fast and tried xv:port=1 ... > > > Anyway, as it's not so easy in totem and xine, and using the cmdline > > > isn't so hype these days, I think it may make sense to use texturing by > > > default with composite. > > > > Possibly, or it might be even better if the video players become > > smarter, e.g. using the overlay when their window isn't redirected (say > > in fullscreen mode) and a textured port otherwise (or when the overlay > > isn't available). Or, if we can make both adaptors work equally well, > > maybe we could merge them to a single one which automagically switches > > between overlay and textured as appropriate :). One can dream... > > That means the player can discriminate between textured and overlay > adaptors, and know if it's in a composited environment. More clientspace > hackery.
Hence the last idea of making it all transparent in the driver. It may not be feasible though unfortunately. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://tungstengraphics.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer _______________________________________________ xorg-driver-ati mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-driver-ati
