RandR 1.3 additions?

[Alex Deucher]

On Jan 22, 2008 3:14 PM, Luc Verhaegen <libv at skynet.be> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 02:20:43PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
> >
> > Believe it or not lots of people (including myself) have been thinking
> > about multi-head abstraction for quite a while, often independently.
> > It's awful presumptuous to say you are the origin of the "output"
> > concept.
>
> There's vast irclogs, which i am quite happy to produce, and quite
> significant pieces of code (feel free to look at the unichrome
> history) to back this up, while there was very little involvement from
> your side at the time.
>
> There's a two talks, with crap slides, which happened at a time when the
> current X drivers were supposed to die in favour of kdrive, and which as
> such got rather little feedback.
>

Anyone who's worked on multi-crtc hardware in the 5-7 years would have
come to pretty similar abstractions as the hardware is all pretty
similar.  It's not rocket science.

> > Where do you get original?  Just because you think output meant
> > encoder doesn't mean that's the "standard" understanding.  A randr
> > output is vague at best.  It' just as reasonable to associate output
> > with connector as to associate output with encoder.  As it's used in
> > randr, "output" seems to fit connector better than encoder.  It more
> > or less signifies a monitor, something that plugs into a connector.
>
> This is something only you have adopted, recently.

This was my understanding of randr outputs and radeon had been
implemented that way since I started working on randr 1.2 in the
spring of last year.  Randr outputs have always been vague, but
connectors seemed like the most logical interpretation as that's what
the user sees on their card.

Alex