On 10/20/25 14:08, Damien Stewart wrote: > On 20/10/25 9:33 pm, Michel Dänzer wrote: >> The patch is incorrect regardless of endianness, it could break things even >> on big-endian architectures. It can only help for anything by accident. > > So the patch is simple and removes BGRA ordered pixels from a list? But keeps > ABGR ordered pixels. Does the order of items in table list matter?
The order shouldn't matter[0], the problem is that the correct mappings for PIPE_FORMAT_X/A8R8G8B8_UNORM are replaced by incorrect ones. [0] Not for correctness, it can matter for which formats end up used in a given scenario though. > I never got that ABGR order, it's almost like a confused PDP 11 pixel order. It's a matter of convention, it's not possible to determine what the order actually is without knowing the applicable convention(s). The important point to keep in mind here is that both PIPE_FORMAT_?8?8?8?8_UNORM & DRM_FORMAT_????8888 are defined independently from endianness, so there's an unambiguously correct mapping between them regardless of endianness. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ GNOME / Xwayland / Mesa developer https://redhat.com \ Libre software enthusiast
