On 02/20/2014 12:47 AM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:22:19PM -0800, Aaron Plattner wrote: >> On 05/31/2013 07:01 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>> From: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]> >>> >>> Using just one decimal place for dotclock and refresh rates loses quite >>> a bit of information. When dealing with 60Hz vs. 59.94Hz refresh rate >>> modes for example, it's useful to see at least two decimal places. For >>> the dotclock in similar cases, three decimal places seems quite a bit >>> better than just one. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> xrandr.c | 18 +++++++++--------- >>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/xrandr.c b/xrandr.c >>> index 94e5c2e..9467c29 100644 >>> --- a/xrandr.c >>> +++ b/xrandr.c >>> @@ -1564,7 +1564,7 @@ crtc_apply (crtc_t *crtc) >>> rr_outputs[o] = crtc->outputs[o]->output.xid; >>> mode = crtc->mode_info->id; >>> if (verbose) { >>> - printf ("crtc %d: %12s %6.1f +%d+%d", crtc->crtc.index, >>> + printf ("crtc %d: %12s %6.2f +%d+%d", crtc->crtc.index, >>> crtc->mode_info->name, mode_refresh (crtc->mode_info), >>> crtc->x, crtc->y); >>> for (o = 0; o < crtc->noutput; o++) >>> @@ -3589,7 +3589,7 @@ main (int argc, char **argv) >>> XRRModeInfo *mode = find_mode_by_xid >>> (output_info->modes[j]); >>> int f; >>> >>> - printf (" %s (0x%x) %6.1fMHz", >>> + printf (" %s (0x%x) %6.3fMHz", >>> mode->name, (int)mode->id, >>> (double)mode->dotClock / 1000000.0); >>> for (f = 0; mode_flags[f].flag; f++) >>> @@ -3600,10 +3600,10 @@ main (int argc, char **argv) >>> if (j < output_info->npreferred) >>> printf (" +preferred"); >>> printf ("\n"); >>> - printf (" h: width %4d start %4d end %4d total %4d >>> skew %4d clock %6.1fKHz\n", >>> + printf (" h: width %4d start %4d end %4d total %4d >>> skew %4d clock %6.2fKHz\n", >>> mode->width, mode->hSyncStart, mode->hSyncEnd, >>> mode->hTotal, mode->hSkew, mode_hsync (mode) / >>> 1000); >>> - printf (" v: height %4d start %4d end %4d total %4d >>> clock %6.1fHz\n", >>> + printf (" v: height %4d start %4d end %4d total %4d >>> clock %6.2fHz\n", >>> mode->height, mode->vSyncStart, mode->vSyncEnd, >>> mode->vTotal, >>> mode_refresh (mode)); >>> mode->modeFlags |= ModeShown; >>> @@ -3630,7 +3630,7 @@ main (int argc, char **argv) >>> if (strcmp (jmode->name, kmode->name) != 0) continue; >>> mode_shown[k] = True; >>> kmode->modeFlags |= ModeShown; >>> - printf (" %6.1f", mode_refresh (kmode)); >>> + printf (" %6.2f", mode_refresh (kmode)); >>> if (kmode == output->mode_info) >>> printf ("*"); >>> else >>> @@ -3651,13 +3651,13 @@ main (int argc, char **argv) >>> >>> if (!(mode->modeFlags & ModeShown)) >>> { >>> - printf (" %s (0x%x) %6.1fMHz\n", >>> + printf (" %s (0x%x) %6.3fMHz\n", >>> mode->name, (int)mode->id, >>> (double)mode->dotClock / 1000000.0); >>> - printf (" h: width %4d start %4d end %4d total %4d skew >>> %4d clock %6.1fKHz\n", >>> + printf (" h: width %4d start %4d end %4d total %4d skew >>> %4d clock %6.2fKHz\n", >>> mode->width, mode->hSyncStart, mode->hSyncEnd, >>> mode->hTotal, mode->hSkew, mode_hsync (mode) / 1000); >>> - printf (" v: height %4d start %4d end %4d total %4d >>> clock %6.1fHz\n", >>> + printf (" v: height %4d start %4d end %4d total %4d >>> clock %6.2fHz\n", >>> mode->height, mode->vSyncStart, mode->vSyncEnd, >>> mode->vTotal, >>> mode_refresh (mode)); >>> } >>> @@ -3747,7 +3747,7 @@ main (int argc, char **argv) >>> if (rate == rates[i]) >>> break; >>> if (i == nrate) { >>> - fprintf (stderr, "Rate %.1f Hz not available for this size\n", >>> rate); >>> + fprintf (stderr, "Rate %.2f Hz not available for this size\n", >>> rate); >> >> This is referring to an RandR 1.1 rate, which is returned by the server >> as a signed short. It'll never match if the user specifies anything >> other than an even decimal, so it doesn't really make sense to print >> more digits here. > > 'rate' can be whatever the user specified, so ideally we should print it > with the same precision that the user used. But doing that seems more > trouble that it's worth. And if we don't go that dar, then I don't see > any problem with printing it using the same precision that is used > everywhere else. > > But I don't really care that much. If you prefer to drop this hunk, I'm > fine with that.
That's fair. I pushed these changes: remote: Updating patchwork state for http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/Xorg/list/ remote: I: patch #13760 updated using rev 8f9b993342fddfceaa1afbec2996ce10038f10d7. remote: I: patch #13761 updated using rev 00c795e99fe29ecd56e05e915e508c7af0ac39ad. remote: I: 2 patch(es) updated to state Accepted. To git.freedesktop.org:/git/xorg/app/xrandr 7ede207f9064..00c795e99fe2 master -> master >>> exit (1); >>> } >>> } >>> -- Aaron _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
