On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:28:28AM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 09:06:23PM +0000, Konduru, Chandra wrote:
> > > > +/* Primary plane formats for gen >= 9 with NV12 */
> > > > +static const uint32_t skl_primary_formats_with_nv12[] = {
> > > > + DRM_FORMAT_C8,
> > > > + DRM_FORMAT_RGB565,
> > > > + DRM_FORMAT_XRGB8888,
> > > > + DRM_FORMAT_XBGR8888,
> > > > + DRM_FORMAT_ARGB8888,
> > > > + DRM_FORMAT_ABGR8888,
> > > > + DRM_FORMAT_XRGB2101010,
> > > > + DRM_FORMAT_XBGR2101010,
> > > > + DRM_FORMAT_NV12,
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > Looks like we've since gained support for packed YUV formats, so this
> > > patch needs a respin to include those as well.
> > >
> >
> > A while ago Daniel mentioned he can resolve minor/small
> > merge conflicts and don't have to respun.
> > So my understanding is this should be ok as it should be
> > minor one.
>
> Something like this may not even show up as a conflict since you're just
> adding a new table. And even if it does, it would be very easy to
> overlook the fact that the new table should also have the 4:2:2 formats.
Minor conflicts = changes around the code you're changing that doesn't
materially affect your patch.
This here seems like a full-blown feature conflict and means we might even
need to retest (and also make sure test coverage is still adequate).
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
