On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 18:29:14 +0100 > Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I've discussed this a bit on irc and consensus seems to be "some ugliness >> due to interface impendance mistmatches in the kernel? who cares ...". I >> agree that there's not a fundamental problem with fourcc and planar yuv >> that can't be fixed with a bunch of boilerplate code with the assorted set >> of inconsistencies between drivers. So if this is the general consensus >> I'll just look the other way, shut down my shields an recall my battle >> ship out of LEO ... ;-) > > Rob, Joonyoung, Inkie, any comment on using fourcc vs rolling our own > surface definitions? I tend to think that, even if fourcc's aren't perfect, that it is better than the alternatives.. I *think* the main issue is really about single vs multiple buffer objects? Although I've mostly not been having too much time to follow email this week. BR, -R > Thanks, > -- > Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center > _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
