Update on RandR changes from DDC

[Luc Verhaegen]

On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 01:08:01PM +0200, Dirk Thierbach wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 01:48:42AM -0400, Keith Packard wrote:
> 
> > However, actual hardware has another piece in the middle, the CRTC
> > itself, which is relevant as there may be 0, 1 or 2 monitors connected
> > through each CRTC to the frame buffer.
> 
> > Each CRTC has a fixed screen origin and mode. Connected outputs can
> > receive only the provided mode. Hardware can limit which outputs may be
> > connected to the same CRTC, and hardware can provide multiple CRTCs.
> > 
> > Our thought was to avoid the loaded name 'monitor' for either the CRTC
> > or the physical connector, besides, sometimes you don't connect a
> > monitor, you connect a projector, or a video recorder or an antenna.
> > 
> > So, we decided to use the following terminology:
> > 
> > screen:	X screen object, a rectangular array of pixels without a defined
> > destination.
> > 
> > viewport: A rectangular subset of a Screen which has a defined modeline.
> > 
> > output: The destination for pixel data which can be connected to a
> > viewport.
> 
> > I'm happy with 'screen' and 'output', perhaps 'viewport' should instead
> > acquire the technical name 'crtc' as that is fairly well understood by
> > programmers (the target audience for the physical link), however, using
> > a non-technical term in the standard will encourage user-facing strings
> > to share the same term in multiple environments. Suggestions on naming
> > are, as always, quite welcome.
> 
> I like the Intel terminology for those objects: 
> 
> plane: What you called a screen.
> port:  What you called an output. Maybe call it "pixel port" or something 
>        like this to destingiush it from other ports.
> 
> They also use
> 
> pipe:  Any device that reads from a plane and outputs pixel data to a port.
> 
<troll>
for truly original naming: http://kgi.sourceforge.net/OSGPv1.3.pdf
</troll>

Luc Verhaegen.