On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 09:51:48AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Tvrtko Ursulin > <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 01/30/2015 01:43 PM, Rob Clark wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Tvrtko Ursulin > >> <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> +/* > >>>> + * Format Modifier tokens: > >>>> + * > >>>> + * When adding a new token please document the layout with a code > >>>> comment, > >>>> + * similar to the fourcc codes above. drm_fourcc.h is considered the > >>>> + * authoritative source for all of these. > >>>> + */ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On one side modifiers are supposed to be opaque, but then this suggest > >>> they > >>> are supposed to be added in this file and described. Is that right? > >> > >> > >> > >> correct.. opaque as in basically enum values. > >> > >> We do want a description of the format so when someone comes along and > >> adds a new value, we have a chance of realizing that it is the same as > >> an existing value, since there are cases where gpu's from different > >> vendors can support (for example) the same tiling formats. > > > > > > Opaque kind of suggests it is driver private and from that angle definitions > > and descriptions wouldn't belong in the core uapi header. So I think that's > > just confusing and I'd drop opaque from the description and just call it a > > token. > > hmm, to me, 'opaque' just meant 'do not try to interpret the bits'.. > but if that is confusing, I don't mind to just call it a token Yeah could be misunderstood, luckily both the commit message and code comments already just talk about tokens. So I think we're good. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
