On 02/03/15 12:22, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> I don't know why Rob named it like that. "The bpp of the stride"? Shrug.
>
> It's just the bpp of the pixel format; it's not at all associated with
> the stride?
The comment says "this times width is stride", so I thought the naming comes
from that
On 27/02/15 16:40, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 27 February 2015 at 13:01, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:20:17PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>>> omapdrm doesn't check if the width of the framebuffer and the color
>
> s/width/pitch/
>
>>> format's bits-per-pixel match.
Hi,
On 2 March 2015 at 09:50, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 27/02/15 16:40, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> On 27 February 2015 at 13:01, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:20:17PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
omapdrm doesn't check if the width of the framebuffer and the color
>>
>>
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 02:40:20PM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On 27 February 2015 at 13:01, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:20:17PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> >> omapdrm doesn't check if the width of the framebuffer and the color
> >> diff --git
Hi,
On 27 February 2015 at 13:01, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:20:17PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>> omapdrm doesn't check if the width of the framebuffer and the color
s/width/pitch/
>> format's bits-per-pixel match.
s/match/are compatible/
>> For example, using a
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:20:17PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> omapdrm doesn't check if the width of the framebuffer and the color
> format's bits-per-pixel match.
>
> For example, using a display with a width of 1280, and a buffer
> allocated with using 32 bits per pixel (i.e. 1280*4 = 5120
omapdrm doesn't check if the width of the framebuffer and the color
format's bits-per-pixel match.
For example, using a display with a width of 1280, and a buffer
allocated with using 32 bits per pixel (i.e. 1280*4 = 5120 bytes), with
a 24 bits per pixel color format, leads to the following
