RandR 1.3 additions?

[Luc Verhaegen]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 06:24:58PM +0100, Matthias Hopf wrote:
> On Jan 22, 08 12:03:15 -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > > > could be used as the "standard" properties for choosing an encoder
> > > > though.  That said I think in the long run having encoder objects is
> > > > clearer.  It's be nice to know that the VGA port and the TV port
> > > > shared the same actual encoder rather than just signal format
> > > > "analog."
> > >
> > > Signal formats for VGA and TV differ significantly enough. "analog" is
> > > certainly no valid description for a signal format, and hasn't been
> > > proposed in the spec update.
> > 
> > Right, but my point was that you want to know which encoder is used
> > rather than just the signal format.  The encoder would dictate the
> > signal format.    Although I suppose you'd want both since it would be
> > nice to have a standard way of knowing the signal type as well.
> 
> Hm, the encoder will vary from card to card. Yes, it would be preferable
> if even the encoder was abstracted, though this would be very card
> dependent. Feel free to add something related to my proposal, I don't
> have a good feeling ATM how this should look like.
> 
> Matthias

"Encoder abstraction"?

Hasn't "encoder" been "output" all along? Output is encoder, output is 
not connector.

Luc Verhaegen.
SUSE/Novell X Driver Developer.