On 02/22/2016 03:01 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
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.
OK, thanks for the comments.
// Tapani
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
