alanh at fairlite.demon.co.uk
Fri Sep 30 06:32:01 PDT 2005
On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 08:54 -0400, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 08:34 +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 18:21 -0400, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 11:12 +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Also, I'm not sure RRFunc is needed at all. It seems to me that
> > > > xf86SwitchMode() is good enough to let the driver handle the necessary
> > > > switch.
> > > >
> > > > The only thing that is missing is a call that the driver can make to
> > > > obtain the current rotation mode (i.e. randrp->rotation). Removing the
> > > > need completely for RRFunc.
> > >
> > > Isn't DriverFunc still useful in that it allows the driver to cancel a
> > > rotation that it doesn't support?
> > If SwitchMode returned false, why isn't that good enough to cancel the
> > operation too ?
> Because the X server couldn't tell whether it failed because of the
> rotation or because of the mode itself.
Is there a distinction ?
The function call to RandR's SetConfig returns TRUE or FALSE. That's it.
So how would the client know what failed, and so why would the Xserver
More information about the xorg