Hi, On 7 June 2017 at 13:53, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:44:47PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: >> /* >> * We don't require any >> * CCS block size alignment of the fb under the assumption that the >> * hardware will handle things correctly of only a single pixel >> * gets touched. The compression should be lossless so any garbage >> * pixels as part of the same block shouldn't cause visual artifacts. >> */ > > The alignment requirement is gone in upstream, hence my latest CCS > stuff doesn't have the valign/halign stuff anymore. Oh sorry, I'd missed the hsub requirement dropping out. That's fine then. > Anyways, I'll have to revisit the the offsets[] thing because people > didn't like my original linear offset idea, and it doesn't match what > userspace already does. I'm still really confused about this. Your patches implement a linear byte offset. The last time it came up on IRC, all four of myself, Ben, Jason, and you, agreed that linear byte offsets were the only thing which made sense. The Mesa patchset that's been sent out a couple of times and is now in Jason's hands use linear offsets. If everything (kernel, Mesa) uses linear offsets, and everyone (the four of us in the discussion) wants linear offsets - why revisit? Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
