On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 14:54 -0800, Keith Packard wrote: > On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:38:57 -0500, Adam Jackson <[email protected]> wrote: > > The 24bpp code is very poorly tested, and virtually no modern hardware > > implements it. If you need a 24bpp framebuffer, use shadowfb and convert > > in the upload hook. > > I tested the 24bpp fb code when I wrote it; I guess it has rotted away > though? There is still a huge pile of hardware which supports 24bpp, and > some which doesn't support 32bpp well (older mga). Seems fairly harsh to > remove this from the server.
The bugs I've seen seem like the kind of thing that can't ever have worked (24bpp surfaces turning into a8r8g8b8 pictures, that kind of thing). I can dig up bz references if you like. >From a quick scan, the following chips support 24bpp but not 32bpp: chips (some non-HiQV variants) cirrus alpine except 5480 and 7548 vesa (if no 32bpp modes advertised in vbios) vmware (if the host is 24bpp) Everything else appears to have 32bpp support (or doesn't support depth 24 period), although admittedly on older kit you may be running into memory limits. I still think that in any environment using Render you're going to be better off with a blitdown in shadowfb. Meh. If we don't do this I'll just fix building 24bpp support out. I'm perfectly willing to say that 24bpp-only chips are too short to ride. - ajax _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
