Mailinglist Archive: radeonhd (427 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [radeonhd] 0x95C5:0x1043:0x01F4: Asus EAH3450
- From: Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 10:32:46 -0400
- Message-id: <a728f9f90905080732q2e2e99f4p4ad26ea07875d66d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Juergen Buchmueller
<pullmoll@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There is no XAA support for r6xx/r7xx. When you select XAA, it falls
back to shadowfb or none I think.
Most likely you don't have the drm installed correctly. If the drm is
not available, the driver will fallback to direct framebuffer access
rather than shadowfb for software rendering. Shadowfb is faster than
rendering directly to the framebuffer because the framebuffer is
shadowed in system ram.
Alex
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: radeonhd+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: radeonhd+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<pullmoll@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
More info on the dramatic slowdown of my R6xx (R620) blits:
With a 16bpp depth everything seems to be working fine using either
XAA or EXA. It's just the 24bpp mode that shows the slowness in
screen-to-screen blits.
There is no XAA support for r6xx/r7xx. When you select XAA, it falls
back to shadowfb or none I think.
I'm looking into r600_exa.c and r6xx_accel.c to see if I can make out
the difference in the code that handles the distinct depths...
Most likely you don't have the drm installed correctly. If the drm is
not available, the driver will fallback to direct framebuffer access
rather than shadowfb for software rendering. Shadowfb is faster than
rendering directly to the framebuffer because the framebuffer is
shadowed in system ram.
Alex
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: radeonhd+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: radeonhd+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx
| < Previous | Next > |