[PATCH v4 09/21] modetest: Allow specifying plane position

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 06:24:24PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Ville,
> 
> On Wednesday 27 March 2013 19:15:31 Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 05:57:20PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 03:55:50PM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > Extend the -P option to allow specifying the plane x and y offsets. The
> > > > position is optional, if not specified the plane will be positioned at
> > > > the center of the screen as before.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart at ideasonboard.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > 
> > > >  tests/modetest/modetest.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > > >  1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/tests/modetest/modetest.c b/tests/modetest/modetest.c
> > > > index 7153a40..f95efe6 100644
> > > > --- a/tests/modetest/modetest.c
> > > > +++ b/tests/modetest/modetest.c
> > > > @@ -645,6 +645,7 @@ struct connector_arg {
> > > > 
> > > >  struct plane_arg {
> > > >  
> > > >  	uint32_t con_id;  /* the id of connector to bind to */
> > > > 
> > > > +	uint32_t x, y;
> > > 
> > > I'd like the coordinates to allow negative values too.
> > 
> > Tested it and it actually works w/ negative values thanks to the way
> > strtoul() works :) The only real obstacle is the magic '-1' handling.
> > I guess you should just give up on magic values and add some flag to
> > indicate whether the user provided the coords or not.
> 
> Done :-) I'll post a new version.
> 
> > Also I must say that I don't like the syntax you used for specifying the
> > coords. '(' and ')' need to be escaped or the shell eats them. I've been
> > using the x11 -geometry syntax whenever I have to deal with the x/y/w/h
> > combination. It's a reasonably well known syntax and doesn't have these
> > shell issues. Maybe you could use it here as well.
> 
> Given that negative coordinates in the X geometry syntax don't match we what 
> need, should I keep the current syntax, abuse the X geometry syntax, or use 
> something else ?

Since no-one suggeste anything better, I vote for the abuse. I've
already gotten used to it :)

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC