Rafa? Mi?ecki writes:
2008/10/15 Matthias Hopf
: So please post your conclusion, especially if you can back it up with experience or configurations that would work well in one of the scenarios, but not in the other.
I don't really see point of using "analog" and "digital" suffixes. OK, there is:
you can (theoretically) drive both the analog and digital lines on a DVI port, even with different signals but I belive this is strictly theoretical situation only. I've never seen such a solution in practice, did anyone? If this may be needed in future for development, maybe make this splitting as an option?
Moreover I also don't see point of using -I and -D suffixes for DVI. OK, I know there is some difference, but really... don't think end user cares about it. If someone needs to know what kind of output in on GPU - instruction is for that. Plus maybe we can also put info to Xorg.0.log.
-I and -D is irrelevant for the user (in most cases at least). For the user it would even be more useful to know if it is a single or dual link DVI port - as this determines the maximum resolution possible. Adding this would clutter up things even more :( ATM the supplied information is mostly useful when supporting people or for debugging.
Last confusing thing in my opinion is using DVI-D for HDMI output. Maybe it has the same pins as DVI, maybe every driver calls it DVI... but it's just confusing. In every GPU/notebook documentation with HDMI otuput you will see "HDMI" not "DVI". So that makes little mess. I think it would be nice to create HDMI_n names.
This is a valid point indeed. We can do better here. That we haven't is mainly due to my laziness :( Cheers, Egbert. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: radeonhd+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: radeonhd+help@opensuse.org