[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1492767508.25675.23.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:38:28 +0200
From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
To: Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@...il.com>
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Ville Syrjälä
<ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
Ilia Mirkin <imirkin@...m.mit.edu>,
Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>,
Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@...il.com>,
amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in
line with reality.
Hi,
> > Leaving the yuv formats as-is. I have no idea if and how those are used
> > on bigendian machines.
> just an idea - since we are not sure how the remaining formats are being
> used, should those be marked somehow uncertain whether they are little
> or native endian?
ATM the yuv don't have any byte order annotations, and I simply left
them that way. So it is as clear/unclear as before.
IIRC someone mentioned that for the yuv fourccs there actually is some
standard about the exact ordering. Anyone has a good reference? We
could stick a link to it into a comment.
cheers,
Gerd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists