<div dir="ltr"><div>I mean, I'm mostly talking about user configuration in the case of a desktop, when the user wants to change the mode of the display.<br><br></div>Obviously, it would be best if we could detect hardware edge cases like that where it's going on the fritz and showing a green tint automatically, and simply not offer the user a broken mode in the first place, but I don't want to get a scolding from Adam Jackson, so I'll shut up.<br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Pekka Paalanen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ppaalanen@gmail.com" target="_blank">ppaalanen@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 08:31:34 -0400<br>
"Jasper St. Pierre" <<a href="mailto:jstpierre@mecheye.net">jstpierre@mecheye.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> I don't think the user really knows what refresh is either.<br>
><br>
> I'm actually curious: is there a reason to ever expose different modes to<br>
> the user that have the same width/height but different timings? What's the<br>
> rationale for choosing one instead of the other? I know nothing about<br>
> display panels, keep in mind.<br>
<br>
</div>This is not for users, the whole weston-randr protocol is for<br>
developer and administrator tools for testing different modes without<br>
having to restart Weston and edit a config file in between.<br>
<br>
I cannot see a reason to offer the same mode with different timings<br>
during normal operations, but it would be useful for the very kind of<br>
experimentation that this protocol extension is designed for.<br>
<br>
At least, as far as I have understood. How far this interface should go<br>
is still unclear to me. If Quanxian wants to stick with RandR 1.1<br>
features, i.e. no dynamic custom modelines, that's ok, though to me it<br>
seems like losing a good part of the possible benefits.<br>
<div class=""><br>
> I'm also assuming a modern system here with a modern display panel, so no<br>
> saying "the refresh means the CRT updates faster and it's brighter and less<br>
> less flicker"<br>
<br>
</div>My 1600x1200 monitor, connected via DVI-D, was unstable, going black<br>
once in a while when ran with a normal timings mode at 60 Hz. Switching<br>
to reduced blanking mode made it stable and got rid of the random green<br>
snow. Yes, you can blame the hardware being on its edge.<br>
<br>
The refresh rate was exactly the same. The reduced blanking mode just<br>
made the pixel clock a bit lower, enough to make the picture stable.<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
pq<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 6:35 AM, Pekka Paalanen <<a href="mailto:ppaalanen@gmail.com">ppaalanen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 04:08:15 +0000<br>
> > "Wang, Quanxian" <<a href="mailto:quanxian.wang@intel.com">quanxian.wang@intel.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > > Hi, Pq<br>
> > ><br>
> > > The information to identify the unique mode: width, height and refresh<br>
> > are enough? Not enough in theory. But is enough in real world. I have<br>
> > checked with xrandr. Read the following comment.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Welcome any comment for that.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Thanks<br>
> > ><br>
> > > >> +<br>
> > > >> + <request name="set_mode"><br>
> > > >> + <description summary="set the mode of output"><br>
> > > >> + Set the mode of output.<br>
> > > >> + </description><br>
> > > >> + <arg name="output" type="object" interface="wl_output"<br>
> > > >> + summary="the output object"/><br>
> > > >> + <arg name="width" type="int" summary="width of the mode in<br>
> > > >hardware units"/><br>
> > > >> + <arg name="height" type="int" summary="height of the mode in<br>
> > > >hardware units"/><br>
> > > >> + <arg name="refresh" type="int" summary="vertical refresh rate<br>
> > > >> +in mHz"/><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > >So this is the simple mode set request.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > >Do you think width/height/refresh is really enough to identify a mode?<br>
> > I don't<br>
> > > >think so. I think in the early days of X11 RandR, NVidia hit the same<br>
> > problem, and<br>
> > > >started to expose fake refresh values, only to be able to distinguish<br>
> > modes that<br>
> > > >were identical in width/height/refresh but still different in timings.<br>
> > Or actually I<br>
> > > >think it was much more complicated than that, but this is the point in<br>
> > simple terms.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > >So we need something else here to identify a mode.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > >Check what kind of protocol GNOME uses, and how current RandR protocol<br>
> > works.<br>
> > > [Wang, Quanxian] Hi, Pq<br>
> > > Your understanding are right in theory. But in reality, it is barely<br>
> > possible. Width and height could be easily same, not easy for refresh at<br>
> > the same time. Currently in xrandr, they use mode name to identify one mode<br>
> > (for example widthxheight_refresh). in xrandr process, I don't find they<br>
> > take mode information to compare. Maybe I missed, but from xrandr<br>
> > parameters, there is no such option. They just take width, height, refresh<br>
> > as mode name to identify one mode. Sometimes, only width and height. If we<br>
> > want to fully support one unique mode, all the mode information have to be<br>
> > compared. (clock, hdisplay, hsync_start, hsync_end, htotal, vdisplay,<br>
> > vsync_start, vsync_end, vtotal, flags). But it is not convenient. Sometime,<br>
> > user basically don't know what hdisplay is at all. They just know<br>
> > widthxheight_refresh. My idea is just take width, height, refresh as the<br>
> > unique id for mode.<br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> > I assume the X server has the database of modes. I cannot think of any<br>
> > reason why the xrandr client would be comparing modes at all. Why did<br>
> > you expect that? Isn't the name of a mode in RandR just an arbitrary<br>
> > string (perhaps mapped to an XID)?<br>
> ><br>
> > These were introduced in RandR 1.2 according to the xrandr man page. If<br>
> > you are looking at RandR 1.1, it is not sufficient for distinguishing<br>
> > custom modes.<br>
> ><br>
> > Say, how will you separate a normal mode from a reduced-blanking mode?<br>
> > They can have the same width, height, and refresh rate, but one works<br>
> > while the other is not reliable. I have had such monitors before.<br>
> ><br>
> > Of course, you have the choice to not support custom modes with custom<br>
> > timings. Is your intention to support only custom modes with "standard"<br>
> > timings, but not with custom timings? If so, which standard do you<br>
> > pick? VESA CVT?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Thanks,<br>
> > pq<br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > wayland-devel mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org">wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org</a><br>
> > <a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel</a><br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br> Jasper<br>
</div>