Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:23:11PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Fri 2017-04-21 14:08:04, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > On Fr, 2017-04-21 at 12:25 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:58:24AM +0200, Gerd

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:23:11PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Fri 2017-04-21 14:08:04, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > On Fr, 2017-04-21 at 12:25 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:58:24AM +0200, Gerd

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri 2017-04-21 14:08:04, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > On Fr, 2017-04-21 at 12:25 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:58:24AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > > While working on graphics support for virtual

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri 2017-04-21 14:08:04, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > On Fr, 2017-04-21 at 12:25 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:58:24AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > > While working on graphics support for virtual

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On 25/04/17 07:26 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:12:37AM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: >> On 24/04/17 10:03 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 03:57:02PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: On 22/04/17 07:05 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On 25/04/17 07:26 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:12:37AM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: >> On 24/04/17 10:03 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 03:57:02PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: On 22/04/17 07:05 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:12:37AM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On 24/04/17 10:03 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 03:57:02PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: > >> On 22/04/17 07:05 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > >>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 06:14:31PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:12:37AM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On 24/04/17 10:03 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 03:57:02PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: > >> On 22/04/17 07:05 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > >>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 06:14:31PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On 25/04/17 10:12 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On 24/04/17 10:03 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 03:57:02PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: >>> On 22/04/17 07:05 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 06:14:31PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > >>> My

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On 25/04/17 10:12 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On 24/04/17 10:03 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 03:57:02PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: >>> On 22/04/17 07:05 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 06:14:31PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > >>> My

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On 24/04/17 10:03 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 03:57:02PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: >> On 22/04/17 07:05 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 06:14:31PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: Hi, >> My personal opinion is that formats in drm_fourcc.h

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On 24/04/17 10:03 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 03:57:02PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: >> On 22/04/17 07:05 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 06:14:31PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: Hi, >> My personal opinion is that formats in drm_fourcc.h

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 03:57:02PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On 22/04/17 07:05 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 06:14:31PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > My personal opinion is that formats in drm_fourcc.h should be > independent of the CPU byte

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 03:57:02PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On 22/04/17 07:05 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 06:14:31PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > My personal opinion is that formats in drm_fourcc.h should be > independent of the CPU byte

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On 22/04/17 07:05 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 06:14:31PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> Hi, >> My personal opinion is that formats in drm_fourcc.h should be independent of the CPU byte order and the function drm_mode_legacy_fb_format() and drivers

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On 22/04/17 07:05 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 06:14:31PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> Hi, >> My personal opinion is that formats in drm_fourcc.h should be independent of the CPU byte order and the function drm_mode_legacy_fb_format() and drivers

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On 23/04/17 04:24 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > > fbdev also creates fb's that expect cpu endianness, as disabling the > byteswap logic caused a green fbcon terminal to show up. (So at least > something somewhere in the fbcon -> nouveau's fbdev emulation pipeline > is expecting cpu endianness. This

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On 23/04/17 04:24 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > > fbdev also creates fb's that expect cpu endianness, as disabling the > byteswap logic caused a green fbcon terminal to show up. (So at least > something somewhere in the fbcon -> nouveau's fbdev emulation pipeline > is expecting cpu endianness. This

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Hi, > > I guess that makes changing drm_mode_legacy_fb_format + drivers a > > reasonable option ... > > Yeah, I came to the same conclusion after chatting with some > folks on irc. > > So my current idea is that we change any driver that wants to follow the > CPU endianness to declare support

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Hi, > > I guess that makes changing drm_mode_legacy_fb_format + drivers a > > reasonable option ... > > Yeah, I came to the same conclusion after chatting with some > folks on irc. > > So my current idea is that we change any driver that wants to follow the > CPU endianness to declare support

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Ville Syrjälä >> wrote: >>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 01:07:57AM -0400, Ilia

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Ville Syrjälä >> wrote: >>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 01:07:57AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Ville Syrjälä

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Ville Syrjälä > wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 01:07:57AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Ville Syrjälä >>>

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Ville Syrjälä > wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 01:07:57AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Ville Syrjälä >>> wrote: >>> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:49:49AM -0400, Ilia

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 01:07:57AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Ville Syrjälä >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:49:49AM -0400, Ilia

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 01:07:57AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Ville Syrjälä >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:49:49AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Gerd Hoffmann

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 06:14:31PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > > > > My personal opinion is that formats in drm_fourcc.h should be > > > independent of the CPU byte order and the function > > > drm_mode_legacy_fb_format() and drivers depending on that incorrect > > > assumption be

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 06:14:31PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > > > > My personal opinion is that formats in drm_fourcc.h should be > > > independent of the CPU byte order and the function > > > drm_mode_legacy_fb_format() and drivers depending on that incorrect > > > assumption be

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 01:07:57AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Ville Syrjälä > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:49:49AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 01:07:57AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Ville Syrjälä > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:49:49AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > >> > While working on graphics support for virtual

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:49:49AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> > While working on graphics support for virtual machines on ppc64

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:49:49AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> > While working on graphics support for virtual machines on ppc64 (which >> > exists in both little and big endian

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Hi, > > My personal opinion is that formats in drm_fourcc.h should be > > independent of the CPU byte order and the function > > drm_mode_legacy_fb_format() and drivers depending on that incorrect > > assumption be fixed instead. > > The problem is this isn't a kernel-internal thing any

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Hi, > > My personal opinion is that formats in drm_fourcc.h should be > > independent of the CPU byte order and the function > > drm_mode_legacy_fb_format() and drivers depending on that incorrect > > assumption be fixed instead. > > The problem is this isn't a kernel-internal thing any

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:49:49AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > While working on graphics support for virtual machines on ppc64 (which > > exists in both little and big endian variants) I've figured the comments > > for

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:49:49AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > While working on graphics support for virtual machines on ppc64 (which > > exists in both little and big endian variants) I've figured the comments > > for various drm fourcc

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > While working on graphics support for virtual machines on ppc64 (which > exists in both little and big endian variants) I've figured the comments > for various drm fourcc formats in the header file don't match reality. > >

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Thanks, Christian for adding me. On 2017-04-21 09:27 AM, Christian König wrote: Adding Harry to this mail thread as well, cause is one of the people really affected by this. Christian. Am 21.04.2017 um 15:21 schrieb Christian König: Am 21.04.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Gerd Hoffmann: Hi,

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > While working on graphics support for virtual machines on ppc64 (which > exists in both little and big endian variants) I've figured the comments > for various drm fourcc formats in the header file don't match reality. > > Comments says the

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Thanks, Christian for adding me. On 2017-04-21 09:27 AM, Christian König wrote: Adding Harry to this mail thread as well, cause is one of the people really affected by this. Christian. Am 21.04.2017 um 15:21 schrieb Christian König: Am 21.04.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Gerd Hoffmann: Hi,

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Adding Harry to this mail thread as well, cause is one of the people really affected by this. Christian. Am 21.04.2017 um 15:21 schrieb Christian König: Am 21.04.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Gerd Hoffmann: Hi, "native" to me feels more like "native to the GPU" since these things really are

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Adding Harry to this mail thread as well, cause is one of the people really affected by this. Christian. Am 21.04.2017 um 15:21 schrieb Christian König: Am 21.04.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Gerd Hoffmann: Hi, "native" to me feels more like "native to the GPU" since these things really are

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Am 21.04.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Gerd Hoffmann: Hi, "native" to me feels more like "native to the GPU" since these things really are tied to the GPU not the CPU. That's also why I went with the explicit endianness originally so that the driver could properly declare what the GPU supports.

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Am 21.04.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Gerd Hoffmann: Hi, "native" to me feels more like "native to the GPU" since these things really are tied to the GPU not the CPU. That's also why I went with the explicit endianness originally so that the driver could properly declare what the GPU supports.

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Hi, > > "native" to me feels more like "native to the GPU" since these things > > really are tied to the GPU not the CPU. That's also why I went with the > > explicit endianness originally so that the driver could properly declare > > what the GPU supports. > And to be honest I would really

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Hi, > > "native" to me feels more like "native to the GPU" since these things > > really are tied to the GPU not the CPU. That's also why I went with the > > explicit endianness originally so that the driver could properly declare > > what the GPU supports. > And to be honest I would really

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Am 21.04.2017 um 13:49 schrieb Ville Syrjälä: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 02:40:18PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:08:04 +0300 Ville Syrjälä wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: On Fr, 2017-04-21 at 12:25

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Am 21.04.2017 um 13:49 schrieb Ville Syrjälä: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 02:40:18PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:08:04 +0300 Ville Syrjälä wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: On Fr, 2017-04-21 at 12:25 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: On

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 02:40:18PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:08:04 +0300 > Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > On Fr, 2017-04-21 at 12:25 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > >

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 02:40:18PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:08:04 +0300 > Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > On Fr, 2017-04-21 at 12:25 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Am 21.04.2017 um 13:08 schrieb Ville Syrjälä: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: On Fr, 2017-04-21 at 12:25 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:58:24AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: While working on graphics support for virtual machines on ppc64

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Am 21.04.2017 um 13:08 schrieb Ville Syrjälä: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: On Fr, 2017-04-21 at 12:25 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:58:24AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: While working on graphics support for virtual machines on ppc64

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Hi, > > I personally find "native" more intuitive, but at the end of the day I > > don't mind much. If people prefer "host" over "native" I'll change it. > > "native" to me feels more like "native to the GPU" since these things > really are tied to the GPU not the CPU. Ok, then maybe "host"

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Hi, > > I personally find "native" more intuitive, but at the end of the day I > > don't mind much. If people prefer "host" over "native" I'll change it. > > "native" to me feels more like "native to the GPU" since these things > really are tied to the GPU not the CPU. Ok, then maybe "host"

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:08:04 +0300 Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > On Fr, 2017-04-21 at 12:25 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:58:24AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > >

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:08:04 +0300 Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > On Fr, 2017-04-21 at 12:25 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:58:24AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > > While working on graphics support

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On Fr, 2017-04-21 at 12:25 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:58:24AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > While working on graphics support for virtual machines on ppc64 (which > > > exists in both little and

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On Fr, 2017-04-21 at 12:25 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:58:24AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > While working on graphics support for virtual machines on ppc64 (which > > > exists in both little and

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On Fr, 2017-04-21 at 12:25 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:58:24AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > While working on graphics support for virtual machines on ppc64 (which > > > exists in both little and

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On Fr, 2017-04-21 at 12:25 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:58:24AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > While working on graphics support for virtual machines on ppc64 (which > > > exists in both little and

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fr, 2017-04-21 at 12:25 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:58:24AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > While working on graphics support for virtual machines on ppc64 (which > > exists in both little and big endian variants) I've figured the comments > > for various drm fourcc

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fr, 2017-04-21 at 12:25 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:58:24AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > While working on graphics support for virtual machines on ppc64 (which > > exists in both little and big endian variants) I've figured the comments > > for various drm fourcc

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:38:28AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > > > > Leaving the yuv formats as-is. I have no idea if and how those are used > > > on bigendian machines. > > > just an idea - since we are not sure how the remaining formats are being > > used, should those be marked

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:38:28AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > > > > Leaving the yuv formats as-is. I have no idea if and how those are used > > > on bigendian machines. > > > just an idea - since we are not sure how the remaining formats are being > > used, should those be marked

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Hi, > > Leaving the yuv formats as-is. I have no idea if and how those are used > > on bigendian machines. > just an idea - since we are not sure how the remaining formats are being > used, should those be marked somehow uncertain whether they are little > or native endian? ATM the yuv don't

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Hi, > > Leaving the yuv formats as-is. I have no idea if and how those are used > > on bigendian machines. > just an idea - since we are not sure how the remaining formats are being > used, should those be marked somehow uncertain whether they are little > or native endian? ATM the yuv don't

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:58:24AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > While working on graphics support for virtual machines on ppc64 (which > exists in both little and big endian variants) I've figured the comments > for various drm fourcc formats in the header file don't match reality. > > Comments

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:58:24AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > While working on graphics support for virtual machines on ppc64 (which > exists in both little and big endian variants) I've figured the comments > for various drm fourcc formats in the header file don't match reality. > > Comments

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:58:24 +0200 Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > While working on graphics support for virtual machines on ppc64 (which > exists in both little and big endian variants) I've figured the comments > for various drm fourcc formats in the header file don't match reality.

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:58:24 +0200 Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > While working on graphics support for virtual machines on ppc64 (which > exists in both little and big endian variants) I've figured the comments > for various drm fourcc formats in the header file don't match reality. > > Comments says

[PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

While working on graphics support for virtual machines on ppc64 (which exists in both little and big endian variants) I've figured the comments for various drm fourcc formats in the header file don't match reality. Comments says the RGB formats are little endian, but in practice they are native

[PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

While working on graphics support for virtual machines on ppc64 (which exists in both little and big endian variants) I've figured the comments for various drm fourcc formats in the header file don't match reality. Comments says the RGB formats are little endian, but in practice they are native

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Hi, > > >> BTW, this supports Gerd's patch, since the KMS fbdev emulation code uses > > >> e.g. DRM_FORMAT_XRGB for depth/bpp 24/32, and the fbdev API uses > > >> native endian packed colour values. > > > > > > Same is true for DRM_IOCTL_MODE_ADDFB, with depth/bpp 24/32 you'll get > > >

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Hi, > > >> BTW, this supports Gerd's patch, since the KMS fbdev emulation code uses > > >> e.g. DRM_FORMAT_XRGB for depth/bpp 24/32, and the fbdev API uses > > >> native endian packed colour values. > > > > > > Same is true for DRM_IOCTL_MODE_ADDFB, with depth/bpp 24/32 you'll get > > >

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:01:47 +0900 Michel Dänzer wrote: > On 18/04/17 07:14 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > Hi, > > > >>> Quite true that this proves nothing. However one should note that > >>> fbcon -> fbdev works, > >> > >> BTW, this supports Gerd's patch, since the KMS

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:01:47 +0900 Michel Dänzer wrote: > On 18/04/17 07:14 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > Hi, > > > >>> Quite true that this proves nothing. However one should note that > >>> fbcon -> fbdev works, > >> > >> BTW, this supports Gerd's patch, since the KMS fbdev emulation

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote: >> On 18/04/17 07:14 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >>> Hi, >>> > Quite true that this proves nothing. However one should note that > fbcon

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote: >> On 18/04/17 07:14 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >>> Hi, >>> > Quite true that this proves nothing. However one should note that > fbcon -> fbdev works, BTW, this

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On 18/04/17 07:14 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> Hi, >> Quite true that this proves nothing. However one should note that fbcon -> fbdev works, >>> >>> BTW, this supports Gerd's patch, since the KMS fbdev

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On 18/04/17 07:14 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> Hi, >> Quite true that this proves nothing. However one should note that fbcon -> fbdev works, >>> >>> BTW, this supports Gerd's patch, since the KMS fbdev emulation code uses >>>

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On 18/04/17 07:14 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > >>> Quite true that this proves nothing. However one should note that >>> fbcon -> fbdev works, >> >> BTW, this supports Gerd's patch, since the KMS fbdev emulation code uses >> e.g. DRM_FORMAT_XRGB for depth/bpp 24/32, and the fbdev API

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On 18/04/17 07:14 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > >>> Quite true that this proves nothing. However one should note that >>> fbcon -> fbdev works, >> >> BTW, this supports Gerd's patch, since the KMS fbdev emulation code uses >> e.g. DRM_FORMAT_XRGB for depth/bpp 24/32, and the fbdev API

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Hi, > Right. Very nice if we can trust the virtual machine at least getting > things right, gives some chance for people to test anything. Except... > that's a question of what kind of hardware the virtual machine > emulates. The display device defines what endianess it uses on > framebuffers,

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Hi, > Right. Very nice if we can trust the virtual machine at least getting > things right, gives some chance for people to test anything. Except... > that's a question of what kind of hardware the virtual machine > emulates. The display device defines what endianess it uses on > framebuffers,

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:39:53 +0200 Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > > > > Historical note: RHEL-6.9 (gnome 2) works fine. Not of much interest > > > here, it drives the qemu stdvga with offb, not bochs-drm. > > > > I suppose this proves the virtual machine itself is

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:39:53 +0200 Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > > > > Historical note: RHEL-6.9 (gnome 2) works fine. Not of much interest > > > here, it drives the qemu stdvga with offb, not bochs-drm. > > > > I suppose this proves the virtual machine itself is correct about > >

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Hi, > > Historical note: RHEL-6.9 (gnome 2) works fine. Not of much interest > > here, it drives the qemu stdvga with offb, not bochs-drm. > > I suppose this proves the virtual machine itself is correct about > framebuffer endianess? Except you are running it on a little-endian > host

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Hi, > > Historical note: RHEL-6.9 (gnome 2) works fine. Not of much interest > > here, it drives the qemu stdvga with offb, not bochs-drm. > > I suppose this proves the virtual machine itself is correct about > framebuffer endianess? Except you are running it on a little-endian > host

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:00:17 +0200 Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > > > > ppc64 (big endian) virtual machine, running with qemu stdvga & bochs-drm > > > driver. Xorg with modesetting driver uses DRM_FORMAT_XRGB (one and > > > only format supported by bochs-drm), and we

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:00:17 +0200 Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > > > > ppc64 (big endian) virtual machine, running with qemu stdvga & bochs-drm > > > driver. Xorg with modesetting driver uses DRM_FORMAT_XRGB (one and > > > only format supported by bochs-drm), and we have to interpret that

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Hi, > > Quite true that this proves nothing. However one should note that > > fbcon -> fbdev works, > > BTW, this supports Gerd's patch, since the KMS fbdev emulation code uses > e.g. DRM_FORMAT_XRGB for depth/bpp 24/32, and the fbdev API uses > native endian packed colour values. Same is

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Hi, > > Quite true that this proves nothing. However one should note that > > fbcon -> fbdev works, > > BTW, this supports Gerd's patch, since the KMS fbdev emulation code uses > e.g. DRM_FORMAT_XRGB for depth/bpp 24/32, and the fbdev API uses > native endian packed colour values. Same is

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Hi, > > ppc64 (big endian) virtual machine, running with qemu stdvga & bochs-drm > > driver. Xorg with modesetting driver uses DRM_FORMAT_XRGB (one and > > only format supported by bochs-drm), and we have to interpret that in > > bigendian byte order on the host side to get a correct

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Hi, > > ppc64 (big endian) virtual machine, running with qemu stdvga & bochs-drm > > driver. Xorg with modesetting driver uses DRM_FORMAT_XRGB (one and > > only format supported by bochs-drm), and we have to interpret that in > > bigendian byte order on the host side to get a correct

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On 18/04/17 02:04 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote: >> On 17/04/17 03:43 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > However, I totally agree with Alex that someone

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On 18/04/17 02:04 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote: >> On 17/04/17 03:43 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > However, I totally agree with Alex that someone with a BE machine > should review the

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On 17/04/17 03:43 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: However, I totally agree with Alex that someone with a BE machine should review the whole

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On 17/04/17 03:43 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: However, I totally agree with Alex that someone with a BE machine should review the whole stack before we could be confident with

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On 17/04/17 03:43 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >>> However, I totally agree with Alex that someone with a BE machine >>> should review the whole stack before we could be confident with anything. >> >> Here's what I'm confident

Re: [RfC PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On 17/04/17 03:43 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >>> However, I totally agree with Alex that someone with a BE machine >>> should review the whole stack before we could be confident with anything. >> >> Here's what I'm confident about:

  1   2   >