On Mon 23 Nov 2015, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net> > wrote: > > Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> writes:
> > For that reason 'has_matching_typed_format(MESA_FORMAT_NONE) = true' > > makes sense to me, but 'has_matching_typed_format(BRW_SURFACEFORMAT_RAW) > > = true' and the identification of MESA_FORMAT_NONE with > > BRW_SURFACEFORMAT_RAW does not. > > Yeah, that's a distinction I would like to keep. Perhaps a > BRW_SURFACEFORMAT_INVALID? That's what we're doing in libisl right > now. Does that sound reasonable? Yes, I believe BRW_SURFACEFORMAT_INVALID is very reasonable. To be compatible with the new intel-surface-layout (isl) code I'm writing, you should define BRW_SURFACEFORMAT_INVALID = 0xffff (UINT16_MAX). _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
