[PATCH/RFC] fbdev: Add FOURCC-based format configuration API
laurent.pinchart at ideasonboard.com
Sun Jul 31 16:30:19 PDT 2011
Thanks for the feedback.
On Sunday 31 July 2011 22:32:42 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:51, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> As for struct fb_var_screeninfo fields to support switching to a FOURCC
> >> mode, I also prefer an explicit dedicated flag to specify switching to
> >> it. Even though using FOURCC doesn't fit under the notion of a
> >> videomode, using one of .vmode bits is too tempting, so, I would
> >> actually take the plunge and use FB_VMODE_FOURCC.
> > Another option would be to consider any grayscale > 1 value as a FOURCC.
> > I've briefly checked the in-tree drivers: they only assign grayscale
> > with 0 or 1, and check whether grayscale is 0 or different than 0. If a
> > userspace application only sets grayscale > 1 when talking to a driver
> > that supports the FOURCC-based API, we could get rid of the flag.
> > What can't be easily found out is whether existing applications set
> > grayscale to a > 1 value. They would break when used with FOURCC-aware
> > drivers if we consider any grayscale > 1 value as a FOURCC. Is that a
> > risk we can take ?
> I think we can. I'd expect applications to use either 1 or -1 (i.e. all
> ones), both are invalid FOURCC values.
> Still, I prefer the nonstd way.
> And limiting traditional nonstd values to the lowest 24 bits (there
> are no in-tree drivers using the highest 8 bits, right?).
None that I've found. I still have a preference for the grayscale field
though. As mentioned by Guennadi, the grayscale field would become redundant
for FOURCC-based formats. It's then a good candidate, and would let drivers
(and applications) do any crazy stuff they want with the nonstd field.
More information about the dri-devel