Re: [PATCH] DRM planes

On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 18:29:14 +0100 Daniel Vetter daniel@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?

Thanks,