[REVIEW] DMX2 DIX merge

[Adam Jackson]

On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 11:09 -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Keith Packard <keithp at keithp.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:04:45 -0500, Adam Jackson <ajax at nwnk.net> wrote:
> >> I'm not even really sure what "direct rendered GLX" means in the context
> >> of Xinerama.  I can see a plausible definition if all the GPUs are of
> >> similar enough programming family that they can be driven by the same
> >> DRI driver logic (all R800, for example), but if you're heterogeneous...
> >> Direct rendered TFP would still require getting the GEM handle for the
> >> pixmap to cross DRM device boundaries, even if you're homogeneous.
> >
> > Yeah, I'd say that we should try to get AIGLX working and then consider
> > whether we could make homogeneous direct rendering work sometime later.
> 
> Couldn't we use glxproxy in the short term?  IIRC, it worked under dmx.

The glxProxy code in Xdmx literally just repeats the GLX wire protocol
to the backend X servers.  It is not itself a renderer, nor is it
especially adaptable for client-side use.

- ajax
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20100107/7b7a1dcc/attachment.pgp