On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Tapani Pälli <tapani.pa...@intel.com> wrote: > > On 02/22/2016 02:27 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Tapani Pälli <tapani.pa...@intel.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 02/22/2016 02:01 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Tapani Pälli <tapani.pa...@intel.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Marek; >>>>> >>>>> Was this commit fixing some issues/problems? Why would we not expose >>>>> configs >>>>> with accumulation buffer? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> EGL doesn't support accumulation buffers. >>>> >>> >>> So EGL would not expose such capability. Couldn't it then expose those >>> configs without any harm done? >> >> >> Why? Those configs are useless and redundant. >> > > It looks that I don't fully understand the issue here, I never used > accumulation buffers and most likely never will but what I wanted to > understand is that can these configs still be used without accumulation > buffer being ended up used at all? This is probably what happens as without > this change everything works just fine, no issues. > > If the end effect is that things work same way with or without the patch we > could consider reverting the change? If not, then I will just state to these > guys that they will need to live with a patch in their tree.
I suggest they try to find out what the real issue is instead of working around it. Marek _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
