AIGLX on Radeon Mobility

[Keith Packard]

On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 16:24 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:

> I don't find it so much hard to understand as just plain _wrong_.  I think 
> there's a mistake being made here in trying to do both internal reporting - 
> for shadow, sw cursor, automatic compositing, etc. - and external reporting 
> using the same mechanism.  It feels like damageext/ shouldn't be implemented 
> in terms of miext/damage.

The implementation cost is all about converting rendering requests into
appropriate bounding rectangles, so having only one copy of that code
seems important.

The execution cost is all about hitting only one such conversion, so we
want to share that at run time as well.

This means that (at least for regular client rendering), we really want
to use the same layer.

I think that means we just need to finish suitable hacks so that
'internal' drawing avoid causing damage for 'external' clients.

The most critical thing right now is to write down a comprehensive
specification for what 'damage' means, then write test cases to make it
happen.
 
-- 
keith.packard at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20060225/b544f0ae/attachment.pgp>