linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 02/11] drm/fourcc: Add DRM_FORMAT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <35675e0e-f717-4727-9e5c-4ef837219f30@ideasonboard.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:02:02 +0200
From: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
 Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Vishal Sagar <vishal.sagar@....com>,
 Anatoliy Klymenko <anatoliy.klymenko@....com>,
 Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
 Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
 David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
 Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
 Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/11] drm/fourcc: Add DRM_FORMAT_XV15/XV20

Hi,

On 17/02/2025 22:00, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 04:56:06PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>> Add two new pixel formats:
>>
>> DRM_FORMAT_XV15 ("XV15")
>> DRM_FORMAT_XV20 ("XV20")
>>
>> The formats are 2 plane 10 bit per component YCbCr, with the XV15 2x2
>> subsampled whereas XV20 is 2x1 subsampled.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c  | 8 ++++++++
>>   include/uapi/drm/drm_fourcc.h | 8 ++++++++
>>   2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c
>> index 1e9afbf6ef99..bb0a2294573b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c
>> @@ -346,6 +346,14 @@ const struct drm_format_info *__drm_format_info(u32 format)
>>   		{ .format = DRM_FORMAT_P030,            .depth = 0,  .num_planes = 2,
>>   		  .char_per_block = { 4, 8, 0 }, .block_w = { 3, 3, 0 }, .block_h = { 1, 1, 0 },
>>   		  .hsub = 2, .vsub = 2, .is_yuv = true},
>> +		{ .format = DRM_FORMAT_XV15,		.depth = 0,
>> +		  .num_planes = 2, .char_per_block = { 4, 8, 0 },
>> +		  .block_w = { 3, 3, 0 }, .block_h = { 1, 1, 0 }, .hsub = 2,
>> +		  .vsub = 2, .is_yuv = true },
>> +		{ .format = DRM_FORMAT_XV20,		.depth = 0,
>> +		  .num_planes = 2, .char_per_block = { 4, 8, 0 },
>> +		  .block_w = { 3, 3, 0 }, .block_h = { 1, 1, 0 }, .hsub = 2,
>> +		  .vsub = 1, .is_yuv = true },
> 
> It might be beneficial to use the same formatting as previous entries,
> it simplifies reviewing. If the patchset is resent, it would be nice to
> get that fixed..

But which formatting... The previous entry (singular) is indeed a bit 
different. But many formats before DRM_FORMAT_P030 are formatted as 
these new entries (but then it again changes in earlier entries). It's a 
bit messy list...

But maybe the style in DRM_FORMAT_P030 is better than the style used in 
the new entries, so I could just go with that style.

  Tomi