From: Petr V. <VAN...@vc...> - 2001-01-24 18:19:06
|
On 24 Jan 01 at 18:14, Brad Midgley wrote: > http://cambuca.ldhs.cetuc.puc-rio.br/multiuser/ > > he asks out loud but i'm pretty sure it wouldn't work with a card like a dual-head matrox since > two instances of X couldn't coordinate access to the card. that's why the kernel would need to > provide a framebuffer interface to each screen (and demonstrates why we really need solid kernel > support for doing this properly) If it does not work with dualhead G400, then he did something wrong: /dev/fb0: mode "1024x768-60" # D: 64.994 MHz, H: 48.359 kHz, V: 59.998 Hz geometry 1024 768 1024 8188 8 timings 15386 160 32 30 4 128 4 accel true rgba 8/0,8/0,8/0,0/0 endmode Frame buffer device information: Name : MATROX Address : 0xdc000000 Size : 8384512 Type : PACKED PIXELS Visual : PSEUDOCOLOR XPanStep : 8 YPanStep : 1 YWrapStep : 0 LineLength : 1024 MMIO Address: 0xdfefc000 MMIO Size : 16384 Accelerator : Matrox G400 /dev/fb1: mode "640x480-60" # D: 25.176 MHz, H: 31.469 kHz, V: 59.942 Hz geometry 640 480 640 480 32 timings 39721 48 16 33 10 96 2 rgba 8/16,8/8,8/0,8/24 endmode Frame buffer device information: Name : MATROX DH Address : 0xdc7ff000 Size : 8388608 Type : PACKED PIXELS Visual : TRUECOLOR XPanStep : 8 YPanStep : 1 YWrapStep : 0 LineLength : 2560 MMIO Address: 0xdfefc000 MMIO Size : 16384 Accelerator : No If his driver tries to drive /dev/fb1 with matrox accelerated driver, it is for sure wrong - fb1 clearly says that there is no acceleration for this head. And each head returns 8MB (well, 7.9 and 8) of non-overlapping memory, so I do not see any problem here too. Only problem which can arise is that fb1 supports 16/32bpp only, while fb0 supports text/8/16/24/32. But it is again X/Xinerama problem, not fb one... Or do I miss something? Best regards, Petr Vandrovec van...@vc... |