On 21/05/15 18:02, Tobias Jakobi wrote:
> Hey Emil,
>
> Emil Velikov wrote:
>> Hi Tobias
>>
>> On 12 May 2015 at 21:17, Tobias Jakobi <tjakobi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Don't assume that a plane supports any kind of pixelformat
>>> but do a check first.
>>>
>>> v2: Simplify the format check.
>>> Signed-off-by: Tobias Jakobi <tjakobi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Nice catch ! I will push the tomorrow, unless we hear any objections against it.
>>
>> Patch 1/2 looks sane imho, although I'm not sure if some of the teams
>> has some (automated?) testing which depends on the lack of
>> transparency.
> I'm not sure what you mean by that ('lack of transparency').
The lack of transparency in my explanation :-)
> If you
> create your primary plane with a XRGB-type format then this patch
> doesn't change anything. If you create it with an ARGB-type format then
> I can assume that the user wants an alpha-channel (he explicitly asks
> for it).
>
True. But the test might be assuming that alpha is always 255, thus it
expects that the output for XRGB and ARGB type formats is the same.
Obviously the likely-hood of all that is negligible, esp. considering
the benefit that the patch brings.
I'm picking libdrm patches off the list as we speak, which will include
both of these.
Thanks
Emil
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
