On 20/11/15 06:22 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 16:01:48 +0800
> Jonas Ådahl wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 04:17:58PM -0600, Derek Foreman wrote:
>>> wl_surface.damage uses surface local co-ordinates.
>>>
>>> Buffer scale and buffer transforms came along, and EGL surfaces
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 16:01:48 +0800
Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 04:17:58PM -0600, Derek Foreman wrote:
> > wl_surface.damage uses surface local co-ordinates.
> >
> > Buffer scale and buffer transforms came along, and EGL surfaces
> > have no understanding of them.
> >
> > Theore
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 04:17:58PM -0600, Derek Foreman wrote:
> wl_surface.damage uses surface local co-ordinates.
>
> Buffer scale and buffer transforms came along, and EGL surfaces
> have no understanding of them.
>
> Theoretically, clients pass damage rectangles - in Y-inverted surface
> co-o
On 18/11/15 09:37 PM, Christopher Michael wrote:
> I am certainly not against these changes .. +1 for the effort ;)
>
> However, I would like to know (and possible others would also), what
> does this mean for toolkits ?? Aside from bumping compositor and surface
> versions, what sort of changes (
I am certainly not against these changes .. +1 for the effort ;)
However, I would like to know (and possible others would also), what
does this mean for toolkits ?? Aside from bumping compositor and surface
versions, what sort of changes (short version please) should we look at
implementing to
wl_surface.damage uses surface local co-ordinates.
Buffer scale and buffer transforms came along, and EGL surfaces
have no understanding of them.
Theoretically, clients pass damage rectangles - in Y-inverted surface
co-ordinates) to EGLSwapBuffersWithDamage, and the EGL implementation
passed them
