[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: My first DontZap use case while testing F11 beta



On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 11:02 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 16:54 +0200, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
> > Hi.
> > 
> > On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 09:28:06 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > 
> > > Yes, broken hardware.  There's a 2048 pixel limit we're not letting
> > > you exceed by default because 3d breaks if you do.
> > 
> > Is there a way to change this on the fly? E.g. could I press a "I don't
> > care"-button in gnome-display-settings, and get the larger screen size?
> > (bonus points for enabling 3D again when the virtual size shrinks below
> > 2kx2k again)
> 
> I was talking this over with Kristian actually.  Since we allocate the
> front buffer dynamically for KMS, we could probably let the maximum
> virtual size be 4k or so (which I think really is the 2d limit).  In
> principle, well-behaved GL apps are supposed to check the
> GL_MAX_VIEWPORT_DIMS limit, since that's the maximum window size that's
> expected to work.  So if compiz were well-behaved, it would refuse to
> run if the root window were larger than that.
> 
> Whether compiz actually _does_ that is another question, of course.  But
> I think changing the max virtual to 4k for intel 915 and 945 might be a
> less bad set of tradeoffs.

... Or just hack some code to arrange the displays vertically in VRAM
and fake horizontal somehow. It used to be (Does that still work?) you
could run multi-head on separate video cards, same idea. If anything
pretend the two heads are completely separate framebuffers.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]