> > And one (or two...) generic questions: why is not pseudo_palette
> > u32* pseudo_palette, or even directly u32 pseudo_palette[17] ?
>
> Yes, all drivers should treat the pseudo_palette as u32* anyway, so why
> not change pseudo-palette from void* to u32*?
See other email.
> > And why we do not fill this pseudo_palette with
> > i * 0x01010101U for 8bpp pseudocolor and i * 0x11111111U for 4bpp
> > pseudocolor? This allowed me to remove couple of switches and tests
> > from acceleration fastpaths (and from cfb_imageblit and cfb_fillrect,
> > but I did not changed these two in my benchmarks below).
>
> I also agree for a different reason. Cards with unconventional formats
> (such as monochrome at 8 bpp - 0 for black , 0xff for white) will not
> work with the current code.
Isn't that the job of setcolreg?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 22:00:29 EST