[RFC] RandR 1.3 properties
mhopf at suse.de
Fri Nov 7 07:12:01 PST 2008
On Oct 29, 08 17:08:25 -0700, aplattner at nvidia.com wrote:
> > > > - Is RANDR_BANDWIDTH helpful? Or should we have a dedicated property for
> > > > indicating dual link capability on DVI? What other meta information
> > > > (also on other connections) would be useful?
> > > I think it would be better to just indicate that this is a dual-link
> > > connector.
> > This gets slightly more obscene with DisplayPort, where you get a choice
> > of 1, 2, or 4 lanes, at either of two lane rates.
> I agree that RANDR_BANDWIDTH is not that useful. There are a million
> different bandwidth constraints in modern GPUs and communicating them to an
> X client in such a way that the client can validate modes is just plain
I finally think that the best thing to do for now is to skip this
altogether for this revision.
> > > > - Should RANDR_CONNECTOR_TYPE be made mandatory?
> > > > If a driver *really* doesn't want to implement anything here, it could
> > > > always set this to '0' and be done.
> > > Yes, we should make several of these required. I'm wondering how well we
> > > can do in automatically setting these from BIOS properties in the Intel
> > > driver though.
I agree that it might be difficult to "properly" implement those for all
(especially older) chips.
> > > I'd say that we should feel free to take over the unprefixed name space,
> > > but that we should explicitly call out property names starting with '_'
> > > as non-standard properties.
> While we're at it, is there any chance we could not have
I stuck to the original naming scheme (well, there was only one property
in this list ;) - I'd be happy to use e.g. CamelCase names.
Depending on what the majority likes to have.
Updating specs for the next round...
Matthias Hopf <mhopf at suse.de> __ __ __
Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg (_ | | (_ |__ mat at mshopf.de
Phone +49-911-74053-715 __) |_| __) |__ R & D www.mshopf.de
More information about the xorg