Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

Hi, > > I guess that makes changing drm_mode_legacy_fb_format + drivers a > > reasonable option ... > > Yeah, I came to the same conclusion after chatting with some > folks on irc. > > So my current idea is that we change any driver that wants to follow the > CPU endianness to declare support

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Ville Syrjälä > wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 01:07:57AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Ville Syrjälä >>>

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 01:07:57AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Ville Syrjälä >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:49:49AM -0400, Ilia

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 06:14:31PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > > > > My personal opinion is that formats in drm_fourcc.h should be > > > independent of the CPU byte order and the function > > > drm_mode_legacy_fb_format() and drivers depending on that incorrect > > > assumption be

Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 01:07:57AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Ville Syrjälä > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:49:49AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >

[PATCH libdrm] amdgpu: Use the canonical form in branch predicate

Suggested-by: Emil Velikov Signed-off-by: Edward O'Callaghan --- amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c b/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c index 0993a6d..868eb7b 100644 ---