On Monday, February 22, 2016 2:48:01 PM PST Tapani Pälli 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. > > Thanks; > > // Tapani
We advertise configs with the exact same functionality other than accumulation buffers, so while they could possibly be used, there's no point, as there's another that's entirely equivalent. --Ken
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
