[waffle] [PATCH] gbm: Don't use a config that mesa's gbm doesn't support

2015-02-11 Thread Tom Stellard
Using GBM_FORMAT_ABGR was causing the B and G components to be swapped for some piglit tests. --- I have no idea if this fix is correct, but based on an IRC discussion: http://people.freedesktop.org/~cbrill/dri-log/?channel=dri-develdate=2015-02-05 Using the wrong format here is the reason

Re: [waffle] [wflinfo] [RFC] platform-specific info from wflinfo

2015-02-11 Thread Chad Versace
On 02/10/2015 01:20 PM, Frank Henigman wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Frank Henigman fjhenig...@google.com wrote: Looks like Issue #3 is the format of the information. I thought it was given we should duplicate existing glxinfo/eglinfo/etc as closely as possible, in order to be a

Re: [waffle] [PATCH] gbm: Don't use a config that mesa's gbm doesn't support

2015-02-11 Thread Chad Versace
On 02/11/2015 09:53 AM, Tom Stellard wrote: Using GBM_FORMAT_ABGR was causing the B and G components to be swapped for some piglit tests. --- I have no idea if this fix is correct, but based on an IRC discussion:

Re: [waffle] [PATCH v3] nacl: add implementation for waffle_window_swap_buffers

2015-02-11 Thread Chad Versace
On 02/09/2015 06:22 AM, Tapani Pälli wrote: Implementation for nacl is somewhat different as for other platforms, platform needs to ensure that the previous swap has finished before issuing GL commands or more swaps. This is done by introducing a worker thread that does buffer swaps from a

[waffle] EGL null platform

2015-02-11 Thread Chad Versace
Frank, I see in your Github repo that you're working on support for Chrome OS's null platform. I'm looking forward to it, because some of us in Intel would like to use it too. Do you have an idea when it will be ready for upstreaming? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [waffle] [wflinfo] [RFC] platform-specific info from wflinfo

2015-02-11 Thread Jordan Justen
On 2015-02-11 18:01:26, Chad Versace wrote: On 02/10/2015 01:20 PM, Frank Henigman wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Frank Henigman fjhenig...@google.com wrote: Looks like Issue #3 is the format of the information. I thought it was given we should duplicate existing