On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 09:20 +0100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 21 August 2017 at 18:30, Emil Velikov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 21 August 2017 at 15:44, Daniel Stone <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > My take on it is that the visual types are defined by the platform,
> > > and 0 is a perfectly sensible visual type for a platform which does
> > > not actually have any.
> > >
> >
> > Having the exact same visual type for all visual IDs does strikes me
> > as a bit odd.
> > That said, the spec does not explicitly forbids it so I guess it should be
> > fine?
>
> It should be, yeah. It would be quite odd to use anything other than
> TrueColor for X11, so in effect that only has one value for the type
> either. Maybe just imagine '#define GBM_VISUAL_TYPE_FOURCC 0'
> existing, with no others to ever be defined, and then it might make
> more sense?
>
Hello, people.
What's the status of this patch? It was tagged as candidate for stable,
and hence I'd like to know if requires changes or a R-b.
Thanks in advance!
J.A.
> Cheers,
> Daniel
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-stable mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-stable
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
