+Chia-I Wu
My latest MR
there(https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/merge_requests/11281)
has addressed these though I still only enable the single format to be
safe (since that's the only one I can thoroughly test and already
verified)
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 5:48 PM Chad Versace wrote:
>
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 2:19 PM Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>
> +Nanley
>
> We've not defined those yet. We had some internal talks a couple
> years ago. The rough idea we had at the time was to define a modifier
> for those cases which put the CCS after each main surface at some
> fixed calculation
That's a reasonable plan for now. For LINEAR, X, and Y, the
drmFormatModifierCount is the obvious value for the format. That's enough to
satisfy all the needs of Chrome OS and its zoo of virtual machines. For
simplicity, we can keep VK_FORMAT_FEATURE_DISJOINT_BIT disabled in
I should have said that the minimal support can be for LINEAR, X-tiled
and Y-tiled. CCS can and probably should come later.
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 6:14 PM Yiwei Zhang wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 2:19 PM Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> >
> > +Nanley
> >
> > We've not defined those yet. We had
+Nanley
We've not defined those yet. We had some internal talks a couple
years ago. The rough idea we had at the time was to define a modifier
for those cases which put the CCS after each main surface at some
fixed calculation offset based on width, height, and stride. Then the
one modifier
The Problem: For a given 3-tuple (multi-planar format, DRM format modifier,
chipset), we need Intel ABI that decides (a) the value of
VkDrmFormatModifierPropertiesEXT::drmFormatModifierPlaneCount and (b) the
content of each "modifier" plane.
For example, suppose drmFormatModifierPlaneCount is
