Hi, On 7 June 2017 at 16:33, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 03:24:58PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: >> On 7 June 2017 at 13:53, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > 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? > > Mesa doesn't use linear offsets. Or at least it didn't when I last > looked. It does, and I have correct CCS output (tested by displaying frames either as Y_CCS, or as plain Y; correct display with the former and visibly showing an incomplete primary surface for the latter) with the last set of Mesa patches I submitted, using Weston. It's been that way for a couple of months (?) now, since the stride handling was fixed too. Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
