On 17/02/17 14:56, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 02:42:26PM +0000, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
On 17/02/17 13:54, Brian Starkey wrote:
What's the verdict? We've got [1] which is about to become another
(driver) implementation - better to change before that merges than
after I guess.
-Brian
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/13/304
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:56:55AM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote:
Hi,
On 15 February 2017 at 11:39, Ville Syrjälä
<ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 06:46:39PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Ville Syrjälä
<ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
Hmm. Two's complement is what I was thinking it is. Which shows that
I never managed to read the code in any detail. Definitely needs to
be documented properly.
That sounds supremely backwards. I guess we can't fix this anymore?
I have no idea. Anyone else?
I don't know of any implementation using this; maybe closed Intel
Android stuff? Certainly GitHub showed no-one using it, and neither X
nor Weston/Mutter are using it yet.
Cheers,
Daniel
If we're talking fixed point reprsentation, ChromeOS is using this :
https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/ui/ozone/platform/drm/gpu/drm_device.cc?q=DrmDevice&l=209
So it's already using the sign+magnitude stuff. Which presumably
means we can't change it to two's complement anymore :( Maybe we add a
CTM2 property ;)
Using sign+magnitude definitely looks rather inefficient since there's
a branch inside the loop. With two's complement you wouldn't need that
thing slowing you down.
If you're seriously considering that, you might also want to bump struct
drm_color_lut to use 32bits fields.
It seems some people have concerned about HDR.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
