[PATCH 1/6] Add weston randr protocol
Jasper St. Pierre
jstpierre at mecheye.net
Tue Mar 4 18:53:13 PST 2014
So, before we go further on this, I need to ask three basic questions: what
are the goals of this interface? Who is supposed to use this interface? Why
would they use this interface?
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:07 PM, Wang, Quanxian <quanxian.wang at intel.com>wrote:
> Hi, All
> With the first version of randr protol, I got many useful idea and
> comments. Thanks.
> Before I send the email, I have make it happen in real world but need more
> deep testing.
> Here are new changes and idea for that protocol based on the idea and
> comments, welcome your input.
> 1) Unique operation issue
> Given that one client has two more threads to do mode setting on the same
> output at the same time, how to identify what response (done event) is
> belong to one or another request when they want to get response?
> This is a design flaw in the first version of randr protocol.
> The solution is to use the wayland/weston mechanism, every request will
> generate a resource which be used to send done event to the owner who start
> it. Owner could set the listener on that and keep tuning on the response
> For example
> In client:
> randr_transform =
> /* Here will will add listen callback to get the response for this unique
> request */
> wl_randr_add_listener(randr_transform, &randr_transform_listener, &randr);
> In compositor:
> randr_resource = wl_resource_create(client,&wl_randr_interface,1, action);
> wl_randr_send_action_done(randr_resource, 1<<WL_RANDR_ACTION_TRANSFORM,
> ret, action);
> 2) Security and mess up issue
> Will take randr protocol implementation as a module or plugin. This will
> keep compositor clear and avoid messing up in compositor.c. Also it is will
> be fine for compositor when this could be public.
> The security should be a general issue for wayland instead of for randr
> protocol only. Take randr protocol as a module for user to determine if
> they want to public randr interface for their clients. Once security
> mechanism is built up in wayland, randr could adopt the mechanism to
> enhance the security of randr protocol.
> weston --tty=1 --modules=wrandr.so
> or set it in weston.ini like that
> 3) Group randr operations
> After talking with PQ, in order to avoid glitches, group operation is
> needed. However, if operate on two outputs more at one time, it will bring
> more issues which could not control. In this randr design, will not provide
> group operation on multiple outputs. We provide atomic operation on one
> output, multi outputs operation logic are left to designer/developers.
> Group operation on one output will be designed. For example, you can set
> mode, scale, and transform at one time with one randr request.
> 4) Configuration interface
> Weston randr protocol will be taken as configuration interface for output
> mode setting in wayland. So the permission for that will be strictly under
> the control. Before security mechanism is ready, randr module will be
> designed for compositor as a choice. It is just a loadable module or plugin
> for special compositors. User will take the decision if start it when boot
> up compositor as a module.
> 5) mode setting parameters control
> Mode and output will be under the control. User could not randomly to set
> their mode. They have to select the available modes and outputs provided by
> compositor. Don't allow random mode setting. The mode and output
> information could be provided by weston-randr apps or wl_output interface.
> 6) Disconnected outputs
> When user query output information, showing connected and disconnected
> output as a whole will be fine for user and QA people. Sometime, QA people
> or user like that information. It will be helpful for them to identify how
> many outputs are provided by their machine. Which is connected and which is
> not connected.
> 7) wl_output property event
> Delete get_output_name request and event in protocol. wl_output name event
> will be added into wl_output protocol. This event will send the output name
> to user when they bind wl_output. For width and height of wl_output, I am
> not sure if it is should be sent out at the same time. My idea is it should
> be the same event to send name, width, height after output is changed. But
> currently I will not add that.
> 8) adding set_scale request
> Mode, scale, transform is the basic property of output, I will add them as
> a whole.
> Quanxian Wang
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Paalanen [mailto:ppaalanen at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 5:45 PM
> To: Wang, Quanxian
> Cc: wayland-devel at lists.freedesktop.org; Zhang, Xiong Y
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Add weston randr protocol
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 09:15:55 +0000
> "Wang, Quanxian" <quanxian.wang at intel.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pekka Paalanen [mailto:ppaalanen at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:36 PM
> > To: Wang, Quanxian
> > Cc: wayland-devel at lists.freedesktop.org; Zhang, Xiong Y
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Add weston randr protocol
> > On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:06:23 +0000
> > "Wang, Quanxian" <quanxian.wang at intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Pekka Paalanen [mailto:ppaalanen at gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 3:28 PM
> > > To: Wang, Quanxian
> > > Cc: wayland-devel at lists.freedesktop.org; Zhang, Xiong Y
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Add weston randr protocol
> > >
> > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:28:00 +0800
> > > Quanxian Wang <quanxian.wang at intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Weston protocol wrandr will provide interface to
> > > > 1) set output mode
> > > > 2) set output transform
> > > > 3) move output to relative position
> > > > 4) provide disconnected display port information
> > > >
> > > > *Dynamic* mode setting is the main objective of this protocol.
> > > > Remember, it is one shot operation. For example, if setting the
> > > > mode, just call one request wl_randr_set_mode without any other
> > > > operation.
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > like I said in my other reply, this is a configuration interface,
> > > not something for all applications to use. Protocol comments below
> > > assuming, that this will be a configuration interface and that the
> > > generic idea is acceptable.
> > > If I change the mode on two different outputs, how do I know which
> > > action_done corresponds to which request? [Wang, Quanxian] right,
> > > add wl_output parameter.
> > No. If I do two mode set operations on the same wl_output, then again
> > I would not know which answer was for which. [Wang, Quanxian] I know
> > you mean. Yes, if the same client has more threads which send mode
> > change at the same time, we have to use unique number to stand for
> > every operation.
> That unique number could be a serial, but here more appropriate is a
> unique number for each request. You can let Wayland do all the unique
> number management for you by using the feedback object design I referred to
> below. After all, a Wayland protocol object is essentially just a unique
> number. They are very cheap.
> That is why you almost never need to manually fiddle with "unique numbers"
> in the protocol.
> > Instead, a generic pattern for this kind of "return data" is to let
> > the original request also create a feedback protocol object. This
> > object is unique to the request that was sent, and can deliver any
> > return data without any ambiguity. An example of a feedback object is
> > wl_callback, except it can only deliver "done", not "yes"/"no"; not
> > delivering anything will cause problems. [Wang, Quanxian] Good,
> > thanks.
> > >
> > > What if move succeeds but mode change fails? Wouldn't that leave the
> > > output in an unwanted state which is neither the original nor the
> > > wanted setting? [Wang, Quanxian] one by one. Not support complex. If
> > > you have such case, have to turn back. Call another move back. But
> > > firstly make sure the previous is successful.
> > That will require a lot of roundtrips, and it essentially forces the
> > compositor to show all the intermediate steps on the monitors. IOW,
> > that is designed to be both slow and glitchy. That's not how you
> > should do dynamic mode setting. I think you are going to need atomic
> > group operations. [Wang, Quanxian] Yes, we could provide a request
> > with more parameters setting(group operations). Just like many
> > parameters in weston_output_switch_mode.
> Except you would need to let it cover an arbitrary number of outputs in
> one go. That means that you will need something like what wl_surface.commit
> does. Having a request with a huge number of arguments is not only ugly but
> inflexible, and cannot be extended in the future.
> > > The solution to this would tie in with the solution to take changes
> > > atomic. For instance, to prepare for a configuration change, one
> > > might create a change object in the protocol, store all changes in
> > > that object, and then commit that set of changes atomically. Then
> > > have one return value: the whole set either succeeds or fails.
> > >
> > > I guess you could look for inspiration in the DRM atomic mode
> > > setting API. I don't know how the RandR X11 protocol works, if that
> > > would be a good example also.
> wayland-devel mailing list
> wayland-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the wayland-devel