Hej Pekka, On 30.11.2017 10:44, Pekka Paalanen wrote: >> My point being solely that Xwayland should not decide to come up with >> and force fake modes all by itself if the compositor doesn't know how >> to deal with those.
I totally support this. Anyway we should make sure mutter lists the most important legacy modes (like 800x600), regardless whether supported by the display or not, as soon as it supports scaling. > > Just asked this in IRC as well: why is the input fixup patch to > Xwayland necessary at all? > > If mutter decides to scale up something on its own, it should not > change how the Wayland client sees input, because input is defined in > surface-local coordinates. Is it a mutter bug? > Yeah I think it is. Actually the fact that things get scaled up in fullscreen mode at all seems to be more of a side effect. I tried to move the coordination fix into mutter, but once scaled up, the surface didn't seem to have any reference to it's original size. So that xwayland patch was just for tinkering around. With this xwayland patch here, I'll look into implementing wp_viewport, which should handle input and output scaling. Thanks, Robert _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
