DPI is read from the X server, not Xresources. You can probably adjust DPI by the scale factor in X emulation, Or not scale emulated X windows as suggested.
Thanks Michal On 9 November 2015 at 19:42, Bill Spitzak <spit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Have the X emulator assume the client set the scale to the one determined > from the dpi in the .Xresources? > > > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Jonas Ådahl <jad...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 09:48:59PM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote: >> > Hey, >> > >> > I just got around to trying Wayland on my ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2015. >> > >> > The machine has a 2560x1440px display with 220 DPI, hence I’m using it >> > as a >> > “retina display”, i.e. with a scale factor of 2. On Xorg, I achieve this >> > by >> > setting “Xft.dpi: 192” in my ~/.Xresources. All the applications then >> > come >> > up with crystal-clear text, in comparison to a regular 96 dpi screen at >> > least… :) >> > >> > When running weston without a ~/.config/weston.ini, everything is >> > rendered >> > with the native resolution of 2560x1440px, meaning the text is >> > unreadably >> > small (see the left weston-terminal window in >> > http://t.zekjur.net/xwayland-scale-1-x.png). >> > >> > Therefore, I’ve set the following in my ~/.config/weston.ini: >> > >> > [output] >> > name=eDP-1 >> > scale=2 >> > >> > This is recommended on >> > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Wayland#High_DPI_displays, but I’m >> > not >> > sure if it’s actually the best method or the desired end state of hi-dpi >> > support in wayland/weston. My uncertainty stems from the fact that while >> > text in weston-terminal is rendered clearly, all assets (icons, mouse >> > cursors) are low-resolution, even though higher-resolution versions are >> > available. >> > >> > For the actual issue I’m trying to describe, my test procedure is to use >> > “xrdb ~/.Xresources && urxvt”, then place the urxvt window such that it >> > occupies about half of the screen. >> > >> > With scale=2 (see http://t.zekjur.net/xwayland-scale-2-x.png), I get a >> > window with about 640px width in xwininfo and an extremely big font. I >> > suppose this is because the Xwayland window (is that how it works?) is >> > scaled to 2x. >> > >> > With scale=1 (see http://t.zekjur.net/xwayland-scale-1-x.png), I get a >> > window with about 1280px width in xwininfo and the font I expect. >> > >> > So, it seems to me that I have to use scale=2 to get wayland apps to >> > render >> > correctly on a hi-dpi screen, and scale=1 to get xwayland apps to render >> > correctly on a hi-dpi screen, and I obviously can’t do both at the same >> > time. >> >> Pretty much. weston pretty much assumes that X11 clients are simply just >> not HiDPI capable, and will just scale up as if it was a Wayland client, >> and this produces this result. >> >> As a side note, in mutter we currently don't scale up Xwayland client >> surfaces because of this reason; in GNOME, clients tend to be rendered >> with respect to the DPI (i.e. at double the scale if the DPI is high >> enough), and since the X server has no clue about the scale in use, it >> will always set the buffer scale to 1. Pointer cursors has the same >> issue; the X side of things might be aware of it (but without the actual >> X server having any idea of what's going on). >> >> An issue with this is that non-DPI-aware X clients will look very tiny; >> but this since that wasn't really a regression from before, we are >> currently living with it. Another issue is that even though the display >> server is aware of each monitor's individual DPI, X11 windows will not >> adapt their size to the monitor. >> >> A possible way to deal with this in the future is to add per window >> properties specifying the scale the client actually drew its content >> with, an X11 equivalent of wl_surface.set_buffer_scale more or less. >> This might be problematic though because of race conditions and what >> not, and I'm not aware of it being tried out anywhere. >> >> > >> > Shall I file a bug about this, or am I misunderstanding something? >> >> Feel free to report one. I took a quick look, but couldn't see any >> existing bug in the fdo bug tracker which covers this. >> >> >> Jonas >> >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Best regards, >> > Michael >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > wayland-devel mailing list >> > wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> wayland-devel mailing list >> wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > wayland-devel mailing list > wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel > _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel