[PATCH] DRM planes

[Rob Clark]

On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 18:29:14 +0100
> Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've discussed this a bit on irc and consensus seems to be "some ugliness
>> due to interface impendance mistmatches in the kernel? who cares ...". I
>> agree that there's not a fundamental problem with fourcc and planar yuv
>> that can't be fixed with a bunch of boilerplate code with the assorted set
>> of inconsistencies between drivers. So if this is the general consensus
>> I'll just look the other way, shut down my shields an recall my battle
>> ship out of LEO ... ;-)
>
> Rob, Joonyoung, Inkie, any comment on using fourcc vs rolling our own
> surface definitions?

I tend to think that, even if fourcc's aren't perfect, that it is
better than the alternatives..

I *think* the main issue is really about single vs multiple buffer
objects?  Although I've mostly not been having too much time to follow
email this week.

BR,
-R


> Thanks,
> --
> Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
>