On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 08:51:02AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 01:41:22AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 11:10:02AM -0500, Clint Adams wrote: > > > > If your graphics controller is limited by memory bandwidth, the maximum pixel > > > > clock depends on the number of bits per pixels, since larger pixels mean more > > > > memory bandwidth. > > > > > > I'm unclear on the differences between 24 bpp and 32 bpp and how this > > > relates to internal pixmap format. > > > > Some hardware uses a "packed-pixel format"; that is, 4 24-bit pixels are > > encoded in 3 32-bit words (what Intel calls "DWORDS", I think). > > Yeah, DWORDS, because they are stil living in the era of 16bit hardware :) > > > Other hardware tosses in a zero byte with every 32-bit "DWORD" transfer. > > Well, the permedia2 should support both formats, depending on chosen > mode. Well, maybe this is what is going on. Maybe Solaris is using a packed-pixel format, and XFree86 is using zero-padded format. That is, assuming it's the RAMDAC's job to understand the pixel format, and that some part isn't stuck in front of it to give it a standardized format. I wouldn't know. -- G. Branden Robinson | That's the saving grace of humor: Debian GNU/Linux | if you fail, no one is laughing at branden@debian.org | you. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- A. Whitney Brown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature