Hi, On 28 June 2017 at 02:05, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Chad Versace <chadvers...@chromium.org> > wrote: >> In patch "i965: Use create_for_dri_image in intel_update_image_buffer", >> I see that you pass intel_rb_format(rb) down as the 'format' parameter. >> Is that the only place the override is needed? In that function, why do >> the image's format and the renderbuffer's format differ? When do they >> differ? When they do differ, is it illegal then to update the >> image's format to match? If we don't update the image's format in >> intel_update_image_buffer(), then does the invalidity of >> __DRIimage::format cause potential issues elsewhere? > > I understand your concern. > > Short answer to all of the above: sRGB. > > The long answer is that the DRI formats do not specify a colorspace. (To be > fair, they don't need to because all window system buffers are sRGB). > Depending on the selected visual, the renderbuffer format may be sRGB or > not. In order for other i965 internals to work sanely, we need the miptree > format to match the renderbuffer format. We need to somehow copy the > sRGBness. > > Would you feel more comfortable with a boolean sRGB parameter? That would > make the answers to the above questions much more obvious at the cost of > some code.
s/boolean/enum/ and you're on. As said before, the number of booleans in this series already makes me sad, let alone adding more. Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
