On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 04:38:24PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > For the record, > > 16:30 < agd5f> ickle, our GPUs don't have selectable cursor sizes > 16:31 < agd5f> so on the newer ones, xf86-video-modesetting, etc. would > allocate a 64x64 cursor and it would look squashed and funky since the > hw expects 128x128 > > Which means I was confused when I thought part of the reasoning was > indeed HiDPI support. (I'm still seem to remember that was part of the > argument for large cursors anyway.) > > > Are you saying the Intel DDX currently derives a different meaning to > > the intented behaviour? in which case it can still be changed to not do > > that? > > I still disagree though. This provides all the information I need to > support variable sized cursors and we can use large cursors today. I'd love the game to be about defining clear semantics more than "by interpreting that value this way, I got what I always wanted" :) We can resolve that today with MAX_CURSOR_WIDTH, MAX_CURSOR_HEIGHT caps as well (if you're alluding at the fact that drm_planes may still be a few decades away). We'll still need to expose the full list of supported cursor sizes for compositors at some point or another, my preferred way would be with a property in the exposed cursor drm_plane. -- Damien _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
