bug#34516: Multi-monitor frame sets

[Alan Third <alan@idiocy.org>]

On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 05:10:59PM +0100, Robert Pluim wrote:
> Andy Moreton <andrewjmoreton@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >> At least in 'system preferences/display', when you have two identical monitors
> >> attached, they're called something like 'DELL 1234X' and 'DELL 1234X
> >> (2)' (I canʼt test that right now). If you can show me code on how to
> >> get those names in 10.14, I can confirm. That would be better than
> >> making up names.
> >
> 
> So 'DELL 1234X (1)' and 'DELL 1234X (2)', where (1) is the primary
> monitor.
> 
> > There are usually two different names involved: the name of the
> > file/device that represents the monitor, and a human-readable name for
> > the UI.
> >
> > In Windows, the GUI settings/display describes the monitors as 1 and
> > 2. In emacs, display-monitor-attributes-list reports the device
> > names \\.\DISPLAY1 and \\.\DISPLAY2 (you can see these device names
> > with the WinObj tool from SysInternals). Note that the device names do
> > not mention the make/model of the hardware.
> >
> > For OSX, ioreg or the IoRegistryExplorer app show similar information
> > from the IO registry (a non-persistent database of IO device
> > information). I don't use a mac any more, so I don't know if these tools
> > are still available).
> 
> I donʼt know, but the code in ns_screen_name which appears to do
> something similar does not work for me in 10.14

Try this:

    ioreg -lw0 | grep IODisplayEDID | sed "/[^<]*</s///" | xxd -p -r | strings -6

and see if it returns usable information. If so then that’s what we
should be targeting in ns_screen_name.

I think the approach used in ns_screen_name must have been removed in
some version of macOS. I tried to modify it to find the information
returned by the above command, but it looks like there’s no direct way
to match up the DID number with IODisplayConnect, which is where
IODisplayEDID is stored.

I’d never heard of ioreg before yesterday, though, so if anyone knows
better I’d be happy to learn otherwise.

> Iʼm not so sure about using the did, as someone suggested, since that
> has a large value, eg here itʼs 724851601, Iʼd prefer to use a simple
> index.

I did think that might be an issue, the main advantage over the simple
index is that it shouldn’t change, whereas I don’t think the index is
guaranteed to be the same on any two consecutive calls.
-- 
Alan Third