RandR bugs

[Alan Hourihane]

On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 08:54 -0400, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 08:34 +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 18:21 -0400, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 11:12 +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Also, I'm not sure RRFunc is needed at all. It seems to me that
> > > > xf86SwitchMode() is good enough to let the driver handle the necessary
> > > > switch.
> > > > 
> > > > The only thing that is missing is a call that the driver can make to
> > > > obtain the current rotation mode (i.e. randrp->rotation). Removing the
> > > > need completely for RRFunc.
> > > 
> > > Isn't DriverFunc still useful in that it allows the driver to cancel a
> > > rotation that it doesn't support?
> > 
> > If SwitchMode returned false, why isn't that good enough to cancel the
> > operation too ?
> 
> Because the X server couldn't tell whether it failed because of the
> rotation or because of the mode itself.

Is there a distinction ?

The function call to RandR's SetConfig returns TRUE or FALSE. That's it.

So how would the client know what failed, and so why would the Xserver
care ?

Alan.