[lkml]   [2017]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in line with reality.
On Fr, 2017-04-21 at 12:25 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:58:24AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > While working on graphics support for virtual machines on ppc64 (which
> > exists in both little and big endian variants) I've figured the comments
> > for various drm fourcc formats in the header file don't match reality.
> >
> > Comments says the RGB formats are little endian, but in practice they
> > are native endian. Look at the drm_mode_legacy_fb_format() helper. It
> > maps -- for example -- bpp/depth 32/24 to DRM_FORMAT_XRGB8888, no matter
> > whenever the machine is little endian or big endian. The users of this
> > function (fbdev emulation, DRM_IOCTL_MODE_ADDFB) expect the framebuffer
> > is native endian, not little endian. Most userspace also operates on
> > native endian only.
> I'm not a fan of "native". Native to what? "CPU" or "host" is what I'd
> call it.

native == whatever the cpu is using.

I personally find "native" more intuitive, but at the end of the day I
don't mind much. If people prefer "host" over "native" I'll change it.

> And what about the mxied endian case? Are you just going to pretend it
> doesn't exist or what?

What exactly do you mean with "mixed endian"? The powerpc case, where
kernel + userspace can run in either big or little endian mode? Or
something else?


 \ /
  Last update: 2017-04-21 11:51    [W:0.196 / U:4.232 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site