Hi, Axel wrote: > > Exactly :-) > There is no particular need for a stable driver API either - the > current R5 API should stay supported as is, and we either extend it > (as > in optional extra hooks), or replace it (as in new engine interface > because the old one doesn't properly support multi-head, or > whatever). > Especially if we go the extension way for now, it would almost take > no > time. > I would also like to add proper TV-Out support to the API. OK. I'll start experimenting then :) About TVout: you did see a bit how it currently works for the Matrox driver I think. It's a bit extended, and also sits in the nvidia driver now. I do not really have plans to add more I must say. Did you have anything particular in mind? I like it simple ;-) All fun aside: adding controls for position, size, flickerfilter etc is something I'd rather _not_ look into. The default settings should be precise enough for general use, video modes should not be messed with anyway, and TVout is going to be extinct soon I hope :-) More output standards is also not on my personal wishlist: DVD's are only created for PAL and NTSC anyway. What I do have on my TVout list is one thing ATM: field retrace sync: I'll add that as a tweak with a nv.setting option to enable it for now. At the least it should confirm my suspicions about how this works :) > > Makes 100% sense. :-) I guess for the memory manager, we could > > start > > off > > from what is currently contained in the different drivers > > supporting > > overlay bitmaps, and see what is common among them to have an idea > > for > > possible constraints. > > Sounds like a good starting point, yes. Indeed. Of course I already know how that is however :) (looked at 4 different manufacturors, and the Be interface as it was is sufficient in this respect. However, it's possible that for blitting there are diffs: this I need to look into more. > > It is definitely supposed to work. I know that the code should be > > contained > > in the stampTV code, which was once available. I think I lost my > > copy. > > Maybe you can get it from somewhere. > > Only the nodes taking part in such a negotiation should be able to > limit the options. Ie. if a node cannot do B_YCbCr422 that would be > understandable, but it's not a general problem. OK, so I take it I need to look at the mediaplayer I am testing with to see if that uses nodes that cannot output decoded video in B_YCbCr422 format. If these nodes are also used for Be's mediaplayer however, they can do it (or overlay wouldn't be used in practice). I am playing around with Kevin's MK mediaplayer and his BeTVOut consumer node: both are BSD/MIT btw. (talked to him about this to be sure). > I also have the stampTV sources over here, in case you need them :) Sounds very interesting, I'd love to receive them ;-) I would like to setup a node that tries both overlay and 2D scaled_filtered_blit for video output to make chances on successfully establishing a connection as big as can be. > > > OTOH: I am getting more and more requests to 'take over' ATI dev. > > > ; > > > -) > > If Thomas can't maintain the driver because he has other stuff to > > do > > (did > > someone manage to contact him recently?), I guess the ATI driver > > would be > > in good hands if you took over. That is, if Thomas doesn't mind. > > I tried to contact him recently, but I didn't get an answer back yet. I was joking a bit of course. Anyway: if I really should look at ATI, then I am going to need a fair amount of cards to test with. Before I ever make a commit to that driver though, I need to first have a good grasp on it (Thomas has a different style from me in coding). And free time of course, which is limited ATM. :) Best regards, Rudolf.