On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 07:56:11AM -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On August 4, 2017 2:59:56 AM Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> > Hi Jason,
> >
> > On 4 August 2017 at 01:52, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > > Previously, the test used the old 64x64 convention that Ville introduced
> > > for CCS tiles and not
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On 4 August 2017 at 15:56, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > On August 4, 2017 2:59:56 AM Daniel Stone wrote:
> >>> + width = ALIGN(f.width * 4, 32) / 32;
> >>> + height = ALIGN(f.height, 16) / 16;
> >>> + f
On 4 August 2017 at 15:56, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On August 4, 2017 2:59:56 AM Daniel Stone wrote:
>>> + width = ALIGN(f.width * 4, 32) / 32;
>>> + height = ALIGN(f.height, 16) / 16;
>>> + f.pitches[1] = ALIGN(width * 1, 128);
>>> f.modif
On August 4, 2017 2:59:56 AM Daniel Stone wrote:
Hi Jason,
On 4 August 2017 at 01:52, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
Previously, the test used the old 64x64 convention that Ville introduced
for CCS tiles and not the current 128x32 Y-tile convention. Also, the
original scheme for generating the CCS d
Hi Jason,
On 4 August 2017 at 01:52, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> Previously, the test used the old 64x64 convention that Ville introduced
> for CCS tiles and not the current 128x32 Y-tile convention. Also, the
> original scheme for generating the CCS data was over-complicated and
> didn't work corre
On 17-08-03 17:52:41, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
Previously, the test used the old 64x64 convention that Ville introduced
for CCS tiles and not the current 128x32 Y-tile convention. Also, the
original scheme for generating the CCS data was over-complicated and
didn't work correctly because it assumed
Previously, the test used the old 64x64 convention that Ville introduced
for CCS tiles and not the current 128x32 Y-tile convention. Also, the
original scheme for generating the CCS data was over-complicated and
didn't work correctly because it assumed you could cut the main surface
at an arbitrar