On 02/24/2015 04:54 PM, Damien Lespiau wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 03:55:57PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@xxxxxxxxx>
We now need the bpp of the fb as Yf tiling has different tile widths
depending on it.
v2: Rebased for the new addfb2 interface. (Tvrtko Ursulin)
v3: Rebased for fb modifier changes. (Tvrtko Ursulin)
Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Might want to add a MISSING_CASE() here as well. For the record, the
Will do.
vertical alignments for Yf are taken from a dodgy looking document found
by chance.
We don't have a 128bpp format supported by display
Ok but we can't really error out from this helper so what do you suggest?
Now that I think about it, for the horizontal stride, BSpec says:
- 8 bpp -> 64 bytes
- * bpp -> 128 bytes
Given that a tile is a page size this would give for the vertical
alignment:
- 8 bpp -> 64 byes (that's what we have)
- * -> 32 bytes
So the 64bpp cases look a bit suspicious. Given that one the goals for
this new tiling format is to have tiles as square as possible (in terms
of pixels, not byte size), it'd make sense to have different strides
constraints for the 64bpp format, so it could be BSpec being wrong on
the horizontal stride constraint for 64bpp?
It's either square or 2:1 rectangular. I'll try to double check the
numbers for 64bpp then.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
