On Wednesday 04 April 2018 13:59:15 Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I took the liberty of moving the last paragraph of your email to the
> top because the reply I'm giving to that part covers both.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Pali Rohár <pali.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> -    printf ("  dimensions:    %dx%d pixels (%dx%d millimeters)\n",
> >> >> -         XDisplayWidth (dpy, scr),  XDisplayHeight (dpy, scr),
> >> >> -         XDisplayWidthMM(dpy, scr), XDisplayHeightMM (dpy, scr));
> >> >> -    printf ("  resolution:    %dx%d dots per inch\n",
> >> >> -         (int) (xres + 0.5), (int) (yres + 0.5));
> >>
> >> I would unconditionally show the core output, regardless of RANDR
> >> state. Even if it's fictitious when RANDR is enabled,
> >> it can still be useful to spot inconsistencies. It also ensures that
> >> the xdpyinfo output is "less" broken by this patch (search for
> >> xdpyinfo grep resolution to get an idea of how used this is as a debug 
> >> tool).
> >
> > XRANDR code below provides that 'grep resolution' support correctly and
> > in the same format. It is there for all those scripts which expects
> > resolution and dimensions to be correct.
> 
> But that's a different piece of information. You mention:
> 
> > This patch is just to fix long standing bug, that scripts which parse
> > xdpyinfo output and users who looking at it too just get wrong
> > information about dimensions and DPI.
> 
> For users, having both pieces of information would be better than
> having just the
> RANDR one, especially for debugging, as that's exactly what the server
> is providing
> via its core protocol, and what legacy (non-RANDR-aware) clients will
> get and use.

Agree.

> For scripts, the situation is a bit hairier, but I wonder how such a
> script would work on a
> server with multiple active outputs, where you patch introduces
> multiple “resolution”
> lines anyway.

Multiple resolution lines are there already. Just enable more Xscreens.
Such setups were common in past for dual head or for Xinerama
configurations. Old script needs to be aware of it, otherwise there were
broken in past too.

> If you think it's important for the primary RANDR output information
> to be first,
> maybe you can move the core information to _after_ the RANDR information,
> but I still think it's important enough that it should stick around.
> 
> (And of course it would be better to fix the scripts themselves, but I
> assume not all of them are
> open source.)

I have no idea, but I was told that more people do (or did?)
'xdpyinfo | grep resolution' optionally with '| head -1' to get current
display DPI.

But I have no problem to modify output of xdpyinfo to provide:

1. Information from XRANDR1.2+
   for all outputs, primary first
2. Information from core

> >> >> +
> >> >> +#ifdef XRANDR
> >> >> +    if (XRRQueryExtension (dpy, &event_base, &error_base) &&
> >> >> +        XRRQueryVersion (dpy, &major, &minor) &&
> >> >> +        (major > 1 || (major == 1 && minor >= 2)) &&
> >> >> +        (res = XRRGetScreenResources (dpy, RootWindow (dpy, scr))))
> >> >> +    {
> >>
> >> I'm pondering whether it would be a good idea to print the RANDR
> >> version here, something like:
> >> printf("  RANDR (%d.%d) outputs:\n", major, minor);
> >> and then nesting the per-output data even more.
> >
> > I as a user, would expect to find XRANDR version in "xrandr" utility
> > output, not in xdpyinfo output.
> >
> > But if you really think that it would make sense to have it also in
> > xdpyinfo, it can be included somewhere...
> 
> I'm not sure if it'd be useful or not, really. We could do without.
> (I do show it in my xdpi <https://github.com/Oblomov/xdpi/>, but as I said,
> I'm an information junkie).
> 
> (BTW, I don't think xrandr actually prints the version).

Seems, yes xrandr output does not contain it.

> >> This doesn't work correctly when the display is rotated, since the
> >> width/height in pixel will follow the orientation,
> >> but the physical sizes won't. You should probably take that into
> >> account, and possibly show the output orientation (e.g. in the
> >> dimensions line, or in the name line if you do add the "RANDR
> >> <version> outputs" header).
> >
> > Hm... I have not thinking about it. If this is a real problem I can look
> > at it and try to fix it.
> 
> Here's how it looks for a rotated output:
> 
>   output: eDP-1
>     dimensions:    1800x3200 pixels (346x194 millimeters)
>     resolution:    132x419 dots per inch
> 
> whereas non-rotated:
> 
>   output: eDP-1
>     dimensions:    3200x1800 pixels (346x194 millimeters)
>     resolution:    235x236 dots per inch

Ok, this should be fixed!

Question is: Should output from xdpyinfo respect rotation or provides
normalized output (as if no rotation was activated)?

> Example from my aforementioned xdpi, rotated:
> 
>         eDP-1: 1800x3200 pixels, (R, connected) 194x346 mm: 236x235
> dpi, 92x92 dpcm, dot pitch 0.11mm
> 
> right side up:
> 
>         eDP-1: 3200x1800 pixels, (U, connected) 346x194 mm: 235x236
> dpi, 92x92 dpcm, dot pitch 0.11mm
> 
> The resolution should be rotational invariant (the monitor dot pitch
> does not change if I put it on its side),
> but the RANDR protocol doesn't take care of swapping the physical
> dimensions, so you have to do it yourself.
> 
> >> Also (please don't hate me), for RANDR versions 1.5 or higher we
> >> should include RANDR monitors too (possibly in place of individual
> >> outputs, I'm not sure about this actually, it depends on how detailed
> >> we want to be; I would go with both, but then again I'm an information
> >> junkie).
> >
> > I know that I RANDR 1.5+ supports "monitors" which is needed for display
> > port outputs, but unfortunately I do not have such configuration for
> > testing. And I do not like idea to write and send code without real
> > testing.
> 
> If no monitors are manually created, the X server will automatically generate
> one per output, so you should be able to test the code even without an
> actual MST monitor.

Currently on my machines I have only Xservers with RandR 1.4.

So I would postpone 1.5+ support. Anyway, xdpyinfo should provide
reasonable output also when 1.5+ is not supported by server, therefore
we would need to have code for pre-1.5 and also for 1.5+ support. You
can also compile client application with 1.5+ support, but it should
work also when connected to just server with 1.4 support (e.g. when
doing SSH X11 forwarding).

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel

Reply via email to