Hi Nico, Thanks for the documentation that is very clear.
Thanks, - ben > -----Original Message----- > From: Nico Huber [mailto:nic...@gmx.de] > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2018 10:34 PM > To: You, Benjamin <benjamin....@intel.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org > Cc: Arthur Heymans <art...@aheymans.xyz> > Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH] CorebootPayloadPkg: Use correct BytesPerScanLine > > Hi Ben, > > On 28.01.2018 09:49, You, Benjamin wrote: > > Hi Nico, > > > > Thanks for the detailed information. It makes sense. I do like the idea of > > documenting the lb_framebuffer. > > > >> The only guarantee for `bytes_per_pixel` (typo? 'bytes_per_scanline') > > yes, typo. > > >> and `x_resolution` you get as a consumer, is that the former is big > >> enough to hold `x_resolution` pixels. > > > > I think it would be good to also document that the consumer is assured that > > in framebuffer, all the 'x_resolution' pixels are aligned at the beginning > > of each scanline, and the extra bytes are always padded after the > > 'x_resolution' pixels in the scanline. Would this be true with existing > > graphics devices? (I am not expert in this area so I'd like to confirm.) > > Yes, that's true. I've started to document the whole thing now: > > https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/coreboot/+/23466/4/src/commonlib/include/ > commonlib/coreboot_tables.h@214 > > The same applies in principle to EFI_GRAPHICS_OUTPUT_MODE_INFORMATION. > This framebuffer layout is very common. > > Nico _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
