Re: [Dri-users] X800 XL and maximum rendering area

[Mikko J R. <mjr...@cc...>]

On to, 2006-06-08 at 16:31 +0200, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
> Mikko J Rauhala wrote:
> > In particular, were I to buy a couple
> > of 1920x1200 screens, would I still be able to get 3D rendering for
> > the whole 3840x1200 desktop area? Given the development of XGL and
> > AIGLX, I'd like not to paint myself into a corner where I could not
> > use a fully GL-rendered desktop.
> I thought the limit was 2560 too, but obviously not. There's a limit in
> the driver for the surface regs, which is 3968. But these are only used 
> for tiling, so it _might_ work up to 4096. No guarantees...

So one could probably cautiously suppose that it would work for 2x1920,
then. Actually, come to think of it, my whole question was kind of silly
since I should be able to test this myself by defining a virtual
resolution 3840 pixels wide, correct? Or does the driver do some tricks
like defining the rendering area to start at the origin of the viewport,
and not the framebuffer? (In that case I _might_ still be able to coax
some crappy 1920 pixels wide mode from my current CRT displays for
testing purposes...)

I'll probably do some testing later when I'm back home. Verification on
the above is welcome.

> This is hard to believe as the 0x554d id is in cvs since about half a 
> year before xorg 6.9/7.0 appeared so is definitely in there (secondary 
> isn't needed).

Ah. Well.

> It may not work however if you use the ati driver wrapper (it should be 
> fixed in cvs, but there are some reports it still doesn't work), you may 
> need to specify radeon as driver.

I did specify radeon as the driver, yes. Reminded of this, I do not
recall exactly in which order I did the xorg.conf tuneups that were
necessary, so it might be that it would've sufficed to do this. However,
also all DRI clients complain about an unknown ChipID, but then decide
to just assume a plain r300, which seems to mostly work. (Is this
assumption problematic in some cases, by the way, or is the warning
something I should expect?)

Anyway, if the ChipID is recognized in your code as you said, probably
not your problem :]

-- 
Mikko J Rauhala <mjr...@cc...>
University of Helsinki