From: Richard Purdie <rpurdie@rpsys.net>
To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Adding screen dimensions to machine configs
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 10:26:34 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1183886795.6407.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f6q30v$s2$1@sea.gmane.org>
On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 08:16 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Paul Sokolovsky schreef:
> > We already discussed issue of providing more exact device screen
> > properties info than currently available screen classes "smallscreen"
> > and "bigscreen". I for one was proponent of staying with those classes
> > instead of hasting with introducing too many screen parameters without
> > proper way of handling them in OE. However, it's just the matter of
> > fact that at least the most basic of them, like screen dimensions are
> > already in use by more than one package (I can point to opie and
> > fbreader out of top of mind), and so far in adhoc manner, so
> > standardizing them would be beneficial.
> >
> > When discussing this on IRC, Marcin Juszkiewicz pointed me to Poky's
> > formfactor package, designed to query various device properties at
> > runtime (including current screen resolution).
> > http://svn.o-hand.com/view/poky/trunk/meta/packages/formfactor/
>
> Formfactor is a hack that does nothing what our Xserver scripts and HAL+OHM can't do. And
> we were explicitly asked *not* to merge it into OE by someone from o-hand.
The ideas in formfactor are directly lifted from zaurusd. I still wish
zaurusd could become a more generic kind of glue program like the fabled
devmand should have been but I can't be the person to do that.
> > I think that it is great tool, and we should merge and leverage it
> > in OE by all means. But it handles only runtime configuration,
>
> And we already have sufficient tools inplace to handle that, formfactor just muddies the
> waters. And if you take a closer look at formfactor, you'll notice it's internally
> inconsistent (e.g. dpi = resolution/size, but you need to specify all 3 in formfactor)
That was mainly because you get some weird DPI values out and often want
control of the rounding.
Formfactor does solve some problems that currently exist. Its a pain
having to patch xtscal for every machine with a rotated screen for
example (duplicating the code in the Xserver script). In the end I've
extended the Xcalibrate extension in Poky to solve that problem properly
though (xtscal no longer needs a rotate option). formfactor also gives
information about the relationship of the keyboard with the screen which
you can't get from anywhere else.
> > Now with formfactor around, I guess it would be nice to use
> > consistent variable names for the same info. Marcin still suggested to
> > use MACHINE_ prefix for build-time (i.e. machine config) variables.
> > So, the exact topic of this RFC is adding
> >
> > MACHINE_DISPLAY_WIDTH_PIXELS=
> > MACHINE_DISPLAY_HEIGHT_PIXELS=
> >
> > to machine configs.
>
> We can add those without adding formfactor.
I'd be in favour of moving the variables defined in formfactor to the
machine.conf file. Poky could then autogenerate the machine specific
formfactor config file and its also becomes available at build time.
Cheers,
Richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-07-08 9:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-07-08 1:11 [RFC] Adding screen dimensions to machine configs Paul Sokolovsky
2007-07-08 7:16 ` Koen Kooi
2007-07-08 8:39 ` Dr. Michael Lauer
2007-07-08 9:26 ` Richard Purdie [this message]
2007-07-08 12:00 ` Stanislav Brabec
2007-07-08 14:27 ` Richard Purdie
2007-07-09 0:53 ` Rod Whitby
2007-07-09 5:31 ` Stelios Koroneos
2007-07-09 12:43 ` Paul Sokolovsky
2007-07-09 13:17 ` Graeme Gregory
2007-07-09 13:35 ` Dr. Michael Lauer
2007-07-09 13:42 ` Graeme Gregory
2007-07-09 13:52 ` Dr. Michael Lauer
2007-07-09 14:03 ` Graeme Gregory
2007-07-09 14:19 ` Dr. Michael Lauer
2007-07-09 14:25 ` Graeme Gregory
2007-07-09 14:40 ` Paul Sokolovsky
2007-07-09 15:15 ` Marcin Juszkiewicz
2007-07-09 20:30 ` Koen Kooi
2007-07-09 22:03 ` Richard Purdie
2007-07-09 15:44 ` Florian Boor
2007-07-09 14:23 ` Marcin Juszkiewicz
2007-07-09 14:25 ` Paul Sokolovsky
2007-07-09 15:11 ` Marcin Juszkiewicz
2007-07-09 13:57 ` Paul Sokolovsky
2007-07-09 13:41 ` Paul Sokolovsky
2007-07-09 15:55 ` Richard Purdie
2007-07-09 20:01 ` Dr. Michael Lauer
2007-07-09 20:19 ` Graeme Gregory
2007-07-09 20:44 ` Richard Purdie
2007-07-09 20:21 ` Koen Kooi
2007-07-09 21:36 ` Paul Sokolovsky
2007-07-09 21:21 ` Paul Sokolovsky
2007-07-10 10:33 ` Dr. Michael Lauer
2007-07-12 12:36 ` Paul Sokolovsky
2007-07-08 11:36 ` Michael Krelin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1183886795.6407.15.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=rpurdie@rpsys.net \
--cc=openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org \
--cc=openembedded-devel@openembedded.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox