On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 16:32:01 +0200 Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote:
> On 2019-08-30 7:00 p.m., Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > > So, next question is, do you think it's acceptable to pass a > > DRIcontext here, and if not, do you have any idea how to solve this > > problem? > > Hmm, not sure. Maybe it would be better to explicitly pass in the > __DRIimage* to which the damage region applies? > > Sorry, for the late reply. I had a look at this proposal and I don't see how passing a __DRIimage object would help. There's this comment [1] that makes me think passing a drawable is the right thing to do, but at the same time I'm not sure how to rework the logic to make it work without having access to the pipe_context (sounds like an invasive change to me). So, I suggest that we revert [2] and [3] until we find a proper solution to address the problem. Daniel, Qiang, are you okay with that? [1]https://elixir.bootlin.com/mesa/latest/source/src/mesa/state_tracker/st_manager.c#L197 [2]492ffbed63a2 ("st/dri2: Implement DRI2bufferDamageExtension") [3]65ae86b85422 ("panfrost: Add support for KHR_partial_update()") _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
