On mån, 2013-05-13 at 13:12 +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > On Mon, 13 May 2013 11:16:07 +0200 > Alexander Larsson <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On ons, 2013-05-08 at 14:51 -0500, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > > > > > Also, we need to figure out how this interacts with the proposed > > > scaling extension. Information can be found here: > > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2013-April/008927.html > > > > I don't think it needs much extension. It works as is, although the docs > > refering to wl_surface.set_buffer_transform also needs to mention the > > scaling factor. > > > > Of course, there is also the question of if we could use the > > wl_surface_scaler interface to do the HiDPI scaling. And, while this > > would be technically possible it seems the wrong approach to me. The > > surface scaler API is much more demanding of the compositor with > > non-integer scaling factors, cropping and aspect ratio changing. I don't > > think we want to force compositors to always support all of that in > > order to work on HiDPI displays where a much simpler subset is needed. > > Also, its a much more complex API to use for something so basic that > > every window will use it. > > > > Basically, wl_surface_scaler is for scaling of subsurfaces with video, > > and I don't think we should mix the two up. > > I agree with your reasoning here. > > I haven't read this whole thread in detail, because it seems to contain > so much "marketing speak" and complicated explanations of things that > should be straightforward. So, am I getting the following right? > > You basically want a default scaling factor for all surfaces, per > output. And, you want a way for clients to opt-out from that default > scaling.
No, that doesn't seem quite right, although maybe I misunderstood it. Lemme try to define it similarly. Each output has a scaling factor set, and all surfaces on that output is scaled by it. However, clients can supply pre-scaled buffers, which co-incidentally allows sub-pixel accuracy in the "scaling" by just rendering at a higher resolution. Basically, compare it to the current wl_surface.set_buffer_transform(). Its essentially that, but the transform extended with scale-by-integer in addition to the rotations. > Is it really that simple? I'm asking because I didn't see it put that > clearly anywhere, but maybe it got lost in between all the 3DTV > discussion and coordinate transforms. Sure, its pretty simple in the end. _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
