Re: [PATCH v4 09/21] modetest: Allow specifying plane position

["Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 05:57:20PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 03:55:50PM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > Extend the -P option to allow specifying the plane x and y offsets. The
> > position is optional, if not specified the plane will be positioned at
> > the center of the screen as before.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
> > ---
> >  tests/modetest/modetest.c | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> >  1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tests/modetest/modetest.c b/tests/modetest/modetest.c
> > index 7153a40..f95efe6 100644
> > --- a/tests/modetest/modetest.c
> > +++ b/tests/modetest/modetest.c
> > @@ -645,6 +645,7 @@ struct connector_arg {
> >  
> >  struct plane_arg {
> >  	uint32_t con_id;  /* the id of connector to bind to */
> > +	uint32_t x, y;
> 
> I'd like the coordinates to allow negative values too.

Tested it and it actually works w/ negative values thanks to the way
strtoul() works :) The only real obstacle is the magic '-1' handling.
I guess you should just give up on magic values and add some flag to
indicate whether the user provided the coords or not.

Also I must say that I don't like the syntax you used for specifying the
coords. '(' and ')' need to be escaped or the shell eats them. I've been
using the x11 -geometry syntax whenever I have to deal with the x/y/w/h
combination. It's a reasonably well known syntax and doesn't have these
shell issues. Maybe you could use it here as well.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC