Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 07:00:02 +0200 From: Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: xf86-video-intel-2.7.1_2 problem Message-ID: <4BDFA9D2.6050506@bsdforen.de> In-Reply-To: <4BDDF504.8060409@bsdforen.de> References: <4BDDF504.8060409@bsdforen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/05/2010 23:56, Dominic Fandrey wrote: > After a surprisingly smooth update Xorg-7.5 update (good job there) > it's time for me to complain about a change in the intel driver. > > The driver suddenly seems to be hard-coded to come up with 96dpi. > This is quite ridiculous as the driver perfectly knows the correct > display size: > LVDS connected 1440x900+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 304mm x 190mm > 1440px / 304mm * 25.4(mm/") ~= 120dpi This is just wicked, xdpyinfo says: dimensions: 1440x900 pixels (381x238 millimeters) resolution: 96x96 dots per inch xrandr says: LVDS connected 1440x900+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 304mm x 190mm Of course xrandr is right, that's the values supplied by the screen. I suspect xdpyinfo just takes the pixel dimensions and resolutions and calculates the screen dimensions: 25.4 * 1440 / 96 = 381 Or the intel driver does it. But why should xrandr show the correct values? After running "xrandr --dpi 120" xdpyinfo shows the correct values. -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4BDFA9D2.6050506>