Hi Emil,
Sorry for late reply.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 15 July 2016 at 08:53, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> There are DRI_IMAGE_FOURCC macros, for which there are no corresponding
>> DRI_IMAGE_FORMAT macros. To support such formats we need to make the
>> lookup functio
On 15 July 2016 at 08:53, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> There are DRI_IMAGE_FOURCC macros, for which there are no corresponding
> DRI_IMAGE_FORMAT macros. To support such formats we need to make the
> lookup function take the native format directly. As a side effect, it
> simplifies all existing calls to t
Hi Rob,
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> There are DRI_IMAGE_FOURCC macros, for which there are no corresponding
>> DRI_IMAGE_FORMAT macros. To support such formats we need to make the
>> lookup function take the native
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> There are DRI_IMAGE_FOURCC macros, for which there are no corresponding
> DRI_IMAGE_FORMAT macros. To support such formats we need to make the
> lookup function take the native format directly. As a side effect, it
> simplifies all existing cal
Tomasz Figa writes:
> There are DRI_IMAGE_FOURCC macros, for which there are no corresponding
> DRI_IMAGE_FORMAT macros. To support such formats we need to make the
> lookup function take the native format directly. As a side effect, it
> simplifies all existing calls to this function, because th
There are DRI_IMAGE_FOURCC macros, for which there are no corresponding
DRI_IMAGE_FORMAT macros. To support such formats we need to make the
lookup function take the native format directly. As a side effect, it
simplifies all existing calls to this function, because they all called
get_format() fir
