[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 2/2] egl/drm: set the VISUAL_TYPE alongside the VISUAL_ID
emil.l.velikov at gmail.com
Mon Aug 21 17:30:16 UTC 2017
On 21 August 2017 at 15:44, Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org> wrote:
> Hi Emil,
> On 21 August 2017 at 15:18, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11 July 2017 at 14:27, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> According to the EGL_KHR_platform_gbm extension:
>>> For each EGLConfig that belongs to the GBM platform, the
>>> EGL_NATIVE_VISUAL_ID attribute is a GBM color format, such as
>>> Which we correctly manage. At the same time the EGL 1.4 spec says
>>> If an EGLConfig supports windows then it may have an associated
>>> native visual. EGL_NATIVE_VISUAL_ID specifies an identifier for this
>>> visual, and EGL_NATIVE_VISUAL_TYPE specifies its type. If an
>>> EGLConfig does not support windows, or if there is no associated
>>> native visual type, then querying EGL_NATIVE_VISUAL_ID will return 0
>>> and querying EGL_NATIVE_VISUAL_TYPE will return EGL_NONE.
>>> Based on this, either both of ID and TYPE should be set, or neither.
>> Does the above make sense? Should we bother?
>> Admittedly the stable tag could be dropped, since it's not that
>> crucial of a fix.
> Did this come up in CTS or similar, or was it just by inspection? I
> don't read 0 to mean 'unset'; if an X11 StaticGray visual gets added
> (admittedly extremely unlikely), that would have a NATIVE_VISUAL_TYPE
> of 0, so there would be precedent for the type being 0.
Spotted by observation. I fully agree though - calling it "set" is wrong.
What I should have mentioned is - unique.
> My take on it is that the visual types are defined by the platform,
> and 0 is a perfectly sensible visual type for a platform which does
> not actually have any.
Having the exact same visual type for all visual IDs does strikes me
as a bit odd.
That said, the spec does not explicitly forbids it so I guess it should be fine?
More information about the mesa-dev