On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:05:22 -0500, Adam Jackson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
A list would be useful if you have one handy. > I still think that in any environment using Render > you're going to be better off with a blitdown in shadowfb. That's true for almost any hardware these days, independent of bit depth. Someday we'll have fast hardware-accelerated 2d graphics, right? > 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. Just pains me to abandon so many currently working configurations. 24bpp means getting decent color on a 4MB card up to 1280x1024. -- [email protected]
pgpS15eaRQXpC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
