[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170421094449.GF30290@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:44:49 +0300
From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
Cc: Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@...il.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
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.
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:38:28AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> 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.
Eh? Everything that is affected by byte order has the relevant comments.
If they don't, then that's a bug.
>
> 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.
The "standard" is fourcc. Whether there is any official reference for
that is unclear. That's exactly why I added the explicit comments into
drm_fourcc.h so that people don't have to go trawling the internets
looking for information on what each pixel format might mean.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
Powered by blists - more mailing lists