<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - The big SKQP bug" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105301#c45">Comment # 45</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - The big SKQP bug" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105301">bug 105301</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:dongseong.hwang@intel.com" title="Dongseong Hwang <dongseong.hwang@intel.com>"> Dongseong Hwang</a> <pre>Kenneth, I changed my mind. Now I think the EGLImage based on a regular texture by EGL_KHR_gl_image can be bound by EGLImageTargetTexture2DOES with TEXTURE_EXTERNAL_OES. I thought some EGLImage (i.e. EGL_KHR_gl_image) should be considered as regular EGLImage and other EGLImage (i.e. dma_buf_egl_image) should be considered as external EGLImage. However I think I was wrong. It's up to the <target> parameter to EGLImageTargetTexture2DOES(). If it's TEXTURE_2D, TexImage2D and TexSubImage2D are available. If it's TEXTURE_EXTERNAL_OES, TexImage2D and TexSubImage2D cannot be used. EGL_KHR_gl_image can be used with both TEXTURE_2D and TEXTURE_EXTERNAL_OES, although dma_buf_egl_image works with only TEXTURE_EXTERNAL_OES. OES_EGL_image_external spec explicitly says TEXTURE_EXTERNAL_OES can be used to EGLImageTargetTexture2DOES() on any EGLImage. <a href="https://www.khronos.org/registry/OpenGL/extensions/OES/OES_EGL_image_external.txt">https://www.khronos.org/registry/OpenGL/extensions/OES/OES_EGL_image_external.txt</a> Dependencies on GL_OES_EGL_image If GL_OES_EGL_image is supported then change the text in both extensions to allow either TEXTURE_2D or TEXTURE_EXTERNAL_OES to be passed as the <target> parameter to EGLImageTargetTexture2DOES(). When <target> is TEXTURE_2D, behavior of EGLImageTargetTexture2DOES() is as described in the GL_OES_EGL_image spec. When <target> is TEXTURE_EXTERNAL_OES, behavior of EGLImageTargetTexture2DOES() is as described in this spec. On the other hands, from implementation side, I think Aditya's change makes sense and this change would be safe because 1. it passes Piglit and deqp 2. it restricts available functionality. About 2, all available functionalities of OES_EGL_image_external is subset of all available functionalities of EGL_KHR_gl_image. Simply speaking, TEXTURE_EXTERNAL_OES just prevents all write operations (e.g. TexImage2D and TexSubImage2D), which EGL_KHR_gl_image already allows. Using TEXTURE_EXTERNAL_OES for EGL_KHR_gl_image EGLImage doesn't add any functionalities but prohibits some functionalities. So I think this is the safe change. Kenneth, what do you think?</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>