On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 at 16:43, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2018-08-28 21:44:54 -0500, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 5:22 PM Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > > This effectively reverts a26693493570a9d0f0fba1be617e01ee7bfff4db which
> > > was a misguided attempt at protecting
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:42 AM Eric Engestrom
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2018-08-28 21:44:54 -0500, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 5:22 PM Jason Ekstrand
> wrote:
> >
> > > This effectively reverts a26693493570a9d0f0fba1be617e01ee7bfff4db which
> > > was a misguided attempt at
On Tuesday, 2018-08-28 21:44:54 -0500, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 5:22 PM Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>
> > This effectively reverts a26693493570a9d0f0fba1be617e01ee7bfff4db which
> > was a misguided attempt at protecting intel_query_dma_buf_modifiers from
> > invalid formats.
Hi,
On 29.08.2018 01:22, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
This effectively reverts a26693493570a9d0f0fba1be617e01ee7bfff4db which
was a misguided attempt at protecting intel_query_dma_buf_modifiers from
invalid formats. Unfortunately, in some internal EGL cases, we can get
an SRGB format validly in this
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 5:22 PM Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> This effectively reverts a26693493570a9d0f0fba1be617e01ee7bfff4db which
> was a misguided attempt at protecting intel_query_dma_buf_modifiers from
> invalid formats. Unfortunately, in some internal EGL cases, we can get
> an SRGB format
This effectively reverts a26693493570a9d0f0fba1be617e01ee7bfff4db which
was a misguided attempt at protecting intel_query_dma_buf_modifiers from
invalid formats. Unfortunately, in some internal EGL cases, we can get
an SRGB format validly in this function. Rejecting such formats caused
us to not
