On 2018-04-10 12:20 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> Oh yes, that's a good point. This is actually a good reason to repeat
> the question:
> Does the name identify the connector or the monitor?
I suppose I should repeat the answer, too: one xdg_output maps to one
wl_output and has a unique name.
It doesn't always make sense to think about connectors. DRM might have
them, but many compositors also have other backends like X11 or Wayland.
wlroots names those too (X11-1, WL-2, etc), but they aren't connectors
and don't have a monitor model.
> The very least the current proposal for a "name" should specify whether
> it refers to the connector or the monitor, because if it is ambiguous,
> then we need to add two more events that are not ambiguous when the
> need to make the difference arises.
I don't think there's any amgibuity. One xdg_output == one wl_output,
this much is already clear by the existing semantics of the protocol and
we needn't go any further than that.
wayland-devel mailing list