On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 05:27 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote: > > Actually, on second thought this means it's probably better to keep the > > current naming scheme for array formats. Maybe the component names and > > sizes could be packed together to indicate packed formats, e.g. > > PIPE_FORMAT_B5G6R5_UNORM would become PIPE_FORMAT_RGB565_UNORM and would > > be defined identically to MESA_FORMAT_RGB565. > > > For my example above, PIPE_FORMAT_R8G8_UNORM would alias to > > PIPE_FORMAT_GR88_UNORM (== MESA_FORMAT_GR88) on little endian and to > > PIPE_FORMAT_RG88_UNORM (== MESA_FORMAT_RG88) on big endian. > > I like this naming better, as I'd prefer the array formats to match > D3D10, and also to prevent confusion with subsampled formats (like > R8G8_R8B8). > > Either way the renaming is just syntactic sugar and is neither urgent > nor a requirement for the semantic changes. But I believe we are > forming some consensus on how to move forward/ > > Ajax, does the above sound good to you too? I think it's not very > different from your initial suggestion.
Yeah, this sounds sane. Keeping array formats consistent with D3D10 naming seems like a smart move. - ajax _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
