[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] i915 XvMC: fixup colors
Carl Worth
cworth at cworth.org
Mon Mar 8 19:49:25 CET 2010
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:27:47 +0100, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> I think we can safely assume that I'm colorblind ;)
> My cleanup accidently created a inconsistency in the YUV plane ordering.
Hi Daniel,
I'm quite video-clueless, so can you explain the change to me in a bit
more detail?
From the description I expected to find that your earlier cleanup
changed the code here unintentionally and that this current change would
revert it. But when I looked at the code, I see the following:
Before b11623f20e303ae1d90d4a6bf0d5d73970b4e9bf:
#define YOFFSET(surface) (surface->srf.offset)
#define UOFFSET(surface) (surface->srf.offset + \
SIZE_Y420(surface->width, surface->height) + \
SIZE_UV420(surface->width, surface->height))
#define VOFFSET(surface) (surface->srf.offset + \
SIZE_Y420(surface->width, surface->height))
After b11623f20e303ae1d90d4a6bf0d5d73970b4e9bf:
#define UOFFSET(surface) (SIZE_Y420(surface->width, surface->height) + \
SIZE_UV420(surface->width, surface->height))
#define VOFFSET(surface) (SIZE_Y420(surface->width, surface->height))
After the proposed patch:
#define UOFFSET(surface) (SIZE_Y420(surface->width, surface->height))
#define VOFFSET(surface) (SIZE_Y420(surface->width, surface->height) + \
SIZE_UV420(surface->width, surface->height))
Which is to say, the current patch is the one change changes the
calculations of UOFFSET and VOFFSET. So is there some other side effect
not visible in this code that justifies that change? If so, could you
explain that in the commit message?
-Carl (who is perhaps missing something obvious here...)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20100308/0ff76853/attachment.sig>
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list