RandR 1.3 additions?

[Matthias Hopf]

On Jan 22, 08 11:26:05 -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > I think I pretty much stated that in the properties I proposed.
> > It still has the advantage of being backwards compatible.
> 
> right, but from the looks of it, they still expose the encoders rather
> than the physical connectors.  We shouldn't need

Yes, because I didn't want to change the backward compatibility.
RandR 1.2 was centered around outputs (what now seems to be called
encoders), and this seemed to be the only way to deal with it on this
abstraction level.

> "RANDR_CONNECTOR_NUMBER" or "RANDR_OUTPUT_NUMBER".  We don't want to
> expose a DVI-I port as DVI-digital-0 and DVI-analog-0, we want to
> expose DVI-I-0.  "RANDR_CONNECTOR_TYPE" and "RANDR_SIGNAL_FORMAT"

Theoretically speaking, yes, that would be preferable, by having
connectors abstracted. Major protocol change, though. This also shows
the downside of a dedicated protocol IMHO.

> could be used as the "standard" properties for choosing an encoder
> though.  That said I think in the long run having encoder objects is
> clearer.  It's be nice to know that the VGA port and the TV port
> shared the same actual encoder rather than just signal format
> "analog."

Signal formats for VGA and TV differ significantly enough. "analog" is
certainly no valid description for a signal format, and hasn't been
proposed in the spec update.

Matthias

-- 
Matthias Hopf <mhopf at suse.de>      __        __   __
Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg   (_   | |  (_   |__          mat at mshopf.de
Phone +49-911-74053-715           __)  |_|  __)  |__  R & D   www.mshopf.de