On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Damien Lespiau
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:23:26PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> Or we simply do this per-pixel format with one for each framebuffer plane,
>> i.e.
>>
>> struct drm_get_plane_fb_limits {
>> uint32_t plane_id; /* in */
>> uint32_
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:23:26PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Or we simply do this per-pixel format with one for each framebuffer plane,
> i.e.
>
> struct drm_get_plane_fb_limits {
> uint32_t plane_id; /* in */
> uint32_t fourcc; /* in */
> struct drm_plane_limits limits[MAX_F
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:23:26PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 04:57:04PM +, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 04:38:24PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > For the record,
> > >
> > > 16:30 < agd5f> ickle, our GPUs don't have selectable cursor sizes
> >
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 04:57:04PM +, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 04:38:24PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > For the record,
> >
> > 16:30 < agd5f> ickle, our GPUs don't have selectable cursor sizes
> > 16:31 < agd5f> so on the newer ones, xf86-video-modesetting, etc. would
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 04:38:24PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Are you saying the Intel DDX currently derives a different meaning to
> > the intented behaviour? in which case it can still be changed to not do
> > that?
>
> I still disagree though. This provides all the information I need to
> s
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 04:38:24PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> For the record,
>
> 16:30 < agd5f> ickle, our GPUs don't have selectable cursor sizes
> 16:31 < agd5f> so on the newer ones, xf86-video-modesetting, etc. would
> allocate a 64x64 cursor and it would look squashed and funky since the
>
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 04:05:29PM +, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 03:09:16PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:59:18PM +, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:54:56PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 03:09:16PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:59:18PM +, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:54:56PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:49:30PM +, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> > > > Those fields are supposed t
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 14:49 +, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> Those fields are supposed to be a good default value for the cursor
> size, intended for the case where the hardware doesn't support 64x64
> cursors, for use with a hw agnostic DDX driver for instance.
>
> We're fine with 64x64 cursors tho
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 14:59 +, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:54:56PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:49:30PM +, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> > > Those fields are supposed to be a good default value for the cursor
> > > size, intended for the case wh
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:59:18PM +, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:54:56PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:49:30PM +, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> > > Those fields are supposed to be a good default value for the cursor
> > > size, intended for the
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:49:30PM +, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> Those fields are supposed to be a good default value for the cursor
> size, intended for the case where the hardware doesn't support 64x64
> cursors, for use with a hw agnostic DDX driver for instance.
>
> We're fine with 64x64 curs
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:54:56PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:49:30PM +, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> > Those fields are supposed to be a good default value for the cursor
> > size, intended for the case where the hardware doesn't support 64x64
> > cursors, for use with
Those fields are supposed to be a good default value for the cursor
size, intended for the case where the hardware doesn't support 64x64
cursors, for use with a hw agnostic DDX driver for instance.
We're fine with 64x64 cursors though and don't need to set those fields
(DRM core will return 64 is
14 matches
Mail list logo
