[protocol PATCH v2 1/2] add parameters for set_fullscreen

Juan Zhao juan.j.zhao at linux.intel.com
Wed Jan 11 07:01:08 PST 2012

On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 10:10 +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote:

> > 
> > > The position of the surface on an output is not defined here,
> > > possibly allowing the video driver to scan out a surface smaller than
> > > the video mode. 
> > I'm not sure I catch your idea here. I would like to make it on the
> > center jus t like fill mode when the surface size do not match any mode.
> My point is to let hardware scan out from the client surface, even if
> the surface is smaller than the video mode. By not defining the image
> to be centered, I am hoping to let more hardware to support this case.
> But, I don't really know about scan-out hardware, and this rationale
> may be moot.
> If some hardware can center the image, then it is welcome to do that.
> If some hardware forces to place the image at the top-left corner for
> it to be scanned out, I don't see a reason to require centering in that
> case, because centering would prevent scanning out the client surface.
> Hence, I would not *require* centering for this scaling mode.
I'm thinking scanout should be used when the surface's width and height
are the same as the output's width and height. 
And our current scanout implementation is doing like this. And one more
concern for a new unmatched support is that when scaning out the
surface, how to handle the mismatch of surface's size and framebuffer
size, or even the current mode's size?

But using scanout is really a good idea here, in case surface's size
matches output's size, we can use scanout other than


> > 
> > 
> > > The aim of "force" mode is to be fast to render.
> > Agree
> Thanks,
> pq

More information about the wayland-devel mailing list