[RFC] RandR 1.3 properties
madman2003 at gmail.com
Fri Nov 7 11:43:40 PST 2008
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Matthias Hopf <mhopf at suse.de> wrote:
> On Nov 07, 08 19:44:07 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
>> Perhaps now would be the time to standardise on a beheaviour, my
>> personal opinion is that, the
>> user should see something that represents the connectors on the back
>> of their computer. Anything else should become a property of that
>> connector (since it's automatic in 99% of the cases). Was there any
>> good reason in that discussion to do otherwise?
> The discussion was rather length and technical, but there are use cases
> where you want to drive the analog pins of e.g. and DVI-I connector
> differently from the digital pins. That's not possible if outputs and
> connectors are mapped 1:1.
Overriding the encoder/output/whatever behind the connector is what i
would put under a property. Unless you're referring to actually using
both the analog and digital pins at the same time, which seems like a
very strange situation (and what percentage of hardware would actually
allow this?). Considering you've only got one set of ddc pins.
> But why do you insist on standardized names? As long as the names
> resemble something user can understand, the exact names shouldn't
> matter. Selecting outputs by properties (connector or signal type) might
> be something interesting for generalized scripts.
> 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