On 06.06.2013 10:34, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> writes: >> On Die, 2013-06-04 at 10:47 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>> (2) it uses PIPE_FORMAT_INT_* names with the lsb first rather than the >>> mesa-like ones with msb first. (I'm happy to change the names to >>> something else though.) >>> >>> The patch isn't in a submittable state yet. I just thought it was worth >>> posting because the lsb-first names do make the change look a bit more >>> obvious/less scary :-) >> I can see the appeal of that, but I also see some danger in that naming >> scheme: It'll be easy to miss the difference between the two kinds of >> formats, e.g. when grepping for B8G8R8A8. That's why I'd prefer making >> the difference more explicit in the naming scheme. Sticking to LSB >> first, BGRA8888 might already look a little less scary? :) > I realise this was probably more a question for Jose, but FWIW: > I liked the names you originally suggested for their consistency with > mesa and natural number ordering (as you said). The PIPE_FORMAT_INT_*
I don't like that _INT_, it could be confused with the SINT/UINT component type postfix, and it's redundant. The distinction provided by R8G8B8A8 vs RGBA8888 is already sufficient. Neither do I like REV, I always have to check what order that actually implies (but then I hardly ever deal with mesa format names). Why not just defined it as RxGyBzAw meaning "left to right = lowest address to highest address" and RGBAxyzw meaning "left to right = least/most (so that it matches the non-REV variant) to most/least significant bit-tuple in a word ? And you can do RG16[_]BG16 if you have 2 words, or R32_G32_B32_A32 for 4 words, but this ugly speciment is equivalent to R32G32B32A32 so it won't ever appear to hurt your eyes. > version seemed OK too from the "lowest always first" perspective. > I'm just afraid that if we use BGRA8888 to mean the reverse of what > it means in mesa, these patches are going to be cursed by gallium > developers for years to come. > > BGRA8888_REV would be consistent with the mesa names while being > lsb-first, and I'd be happy with that too FWIW. It's just that > _REV kind of implies that the other order is somehow the canonical one. > Having all int formats end in _REV might seem a bit odd. > > Thanks, > Richard > > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev > _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
