Hi, On 6 February 2017 at 19:22, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net> wrote: >> Introducing the LINEAR modifier (which happened after v2 of this series) did >> make things complex because it's possible in some horrific future that a >> image >> doesn't support linear. As a result, you are correct. I think for this case, >> the >> client can handle it pretty easily, and returning INVALID is the right >> thing to do. >> >> Daniel, are you okay with changing this to return DRM_FORMAT_MOD_INVALID?
Hm, it's a little less clean, but sure, works for me. >> Yeah, this is also a lie but way trickier than the above. Again before this >> rev >> of the series, 0 meant DRM_FORMAT_MOD_NONE, and that was actually legit, >> however, now it does mean LINEAR. I believe it's safe to assume that all dumb >> BOs are linear, but it should probably be baked in somewhere better. One >> option >> would be to create a proper DRIimage for a dumb BO, but I think the best bet >> is >> to just replace 0 with DRM_FORMAT_MOD_LINEAR. > > That sounds fairly reasonable to me. I guess someone could create a BO with > GBM and then call the kernel ioctl to set the tiling mode to X-tiled and > then ask what it has. However, short of calling into the driver and having > it query the kernel, I don't see a good way to get around that. I think I'd > be ok with just returning LINEAR and saying "don't do that". Daniel? That's impressively contrived, which is a polite way of saying deeply stupid; wouldn't that break Mesa anyway? I'm happy to ban that. Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
