Hi,
On 12 January 2017 at 18:11, Ville Syrjälä
<ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 05:50:15PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> struct drm_plane {
>> struct {
>> uint32_t format;
>> uint64_t modifiers[];
>> } formats[];
>> }
>
> Flipping formats[] vs. modifiers[] here would seem like it should make
> this easier with the proposed kernel API. And if the kernel will also
> uarantee that multiple instances of the same modifier must be returned
> contiguously, then it should be even easier.
>
> Oh and flipping formats[] and modifiers[] should also save a quite a
> bit of space since each format takes twice as much space as each
> modifier. But I suppose that might come at a runtime cost if you have
> to look for a specific format in each modifier's format list instead
> of having to look at just the modifier list of a specific format. So
> I suppose not flipping might be better after all, which I guess would
> complicate populating the infromation somewhat.
>
> Anyways, that's all a bit unrelated to the matter at hand, so I'll stop
> now and just state that I don't mind having an explicit offset if
> people really want it.
It would make sense, but then gbm_surface_create_with_modifiers takes
a fixed pixel format and a list of acceptable modifiers (which to me
seems like the right way around as an API), so whenever I was creating
a surface, I'd have to walk through and create a new list, flipped
back the other way.
Cheers,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
