DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 1047165D0A
Message-ID: <1492767508.25675.23.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: fourcc byteorder: brings header file comments in
 line with reality.
From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
To: Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@gmail.com>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        Ville =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= 
        <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
        Ilia Mirkin <imirkin@alum.mit.edu>,
        Michel =?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E4nzer?= <michel@daenzer.net>,
        Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@gmail.com>, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:38:28 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20170421110605.1a255f44@eldfell>
References: <20170421075825.6307-1-kraxel@redhat.com>
         <20170421110605.1a255f44@eldfell>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 601
Lines: 18

  Hi,

> > Leaving the yuv formats as-is.  I have no idea if and how those are used
> > on bigendian machines.

> just an idea - since we are not sure how the remaining formats are being
> used, should those be marked somehow uncertain whether they are little
> or native endian?

ATM the yuv don't have any byte order annotations, and I simply left
them that way.  So it is as clear/unclear as before.

IIRC someone mentioned that for the yuv fourccs there actually is some
standard about the exact ordering.  Anyone has a good reference?  We
could stick a link to it into a comment.

cheers,
  Gerd