Mark Vojkovich wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Jens Owen wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Vojkovich wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Michael wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm running my system with two graphic cards, and i'm not using xinerama.
>>>>one of the cards is a nvidia and the other is a banshee, individually i can get
>them both glx accelerated, i just need to copy the appropriate libGL depending on if
>i want my banshee or nvidia accelerated, i'm wondering if it's possible in any way to
>use multiple libGL's so i can get both my cards accelerated at the same time.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think so. The separate libGL's could probably be solved with
>>>some LD_PRELOAD magic, but there can only be one GLX extension in
>>>the server (extensions aren't per-screen, they're server-wide).
>>
>>Mark,
>>
>>Have you, or anyone else at NVidia, considered reworking the device
>>independent pieces of the GLX extension and OpenGL client side library
>>from XFree86 to work with NVidia's binary drivers?
>>
>
>
> Not in a long time and never very seriously. I think our
> implementations have diverged quite a bit (we didn't start with
> the public SI and we hacked it quite a bit). Seems like alot
> of work, especially since the XFree86 GLX doesn't support dlopening
> libGLcore (correct?).
Mark,
The developers and integrators of the open source components (the DRI
team) have given some thought to the integration of non-DRI based
solutions as well. However, we're equally guilty of not mounting any
serious effort to address this limitation. With NVidia and the DRI team
working indepedently, neither effort has run into any technical
limitations that couldn't be resolved; however, our lack of common
infrastructure for device independent components does have a negative
impact on both our efforts, as well as some negative impact on the Linux
graphics industry in general.
It is not a trivial effort to allow our diverse implementations to
coexist at run time, and the DRI team is willing to contribute to any
effort that enables the entire industry to use either implementation in
a seamless manner. However, we need cooperation from closed source
vendors to better understand their dependencies, interfaces and issues
that need to be addressed for a common run time infrastructure.
The existance of a dynamically loadable core is something we've
considered, but it has not been a high priority for implementation.
However, I think that priority could change, especially if it would be
used as the basis for a common run time infrastructure that supports
both our diverse implementations.
Regards,
Jens
--
/\
Jens Owen / \/\ _
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ \ \ Steamboat Springs, Colorado
_______________________________________________
Xpert mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xpert
