On 29/07/17 11:08 PM, Daniel Stone wrote: > On 28 July 2017 at 16:44, Keith Packard <kei...@keithp.com> wrote: >> Daniel Stone <dan...@fooishbar.org> writes: > > - the proposed DRI3 v1.1 spec replaced 'depth' as the determinant of > format with an explicit FourCC enum to make things more explicit > - doing that seems to have just confused everyone, so we can make it > a lot more clear by going back to using depth to determine the format > (i.e. depth 24 == XRGB8888 storage), and only adding modifiers on top > of that
[...] > The reason I changed depth to a FourCC wasn't because I'm desperate to > support XBGR as well as XRGB, but because a) drm_fourcc.h modifier > tokens are usually paired with drm_fourcc.h format tokens, and b) > currently with DRI3 v1.0, there is an implicit hardcoded mapping > between depth and format, and being more explicit seemed better than > being implicit. Those two are purely cosmetic though, so going back to > the DRI3 v1.0 scheme of just using depth rather than a FourCC format > would perhaps make the intent a bit more clear. Also, the > XRGB8888/ARGB8888 format restrictions don't seem to be biting anyone: > I haven't seen any demand for extended formats. As explained in other posts, there is no fixed format mapping/restriction with DRI3 v1.0 anyway. It can support all formats that can be stored as integer values of n bits, where n matches (or is even just <= ?) any supported pixmap depth. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
