[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: rasops15 byte order bug
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 20:29:32 +0300
Valery Ushakov <uwe%stderr.spb.ru@localhost> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 13:05:16 -0400, Michael wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:11:34 +0200
> > Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:40:50PM -0700, scole_mail wrote:
> > > > Anyone using a 15/16 bit rasops console without issues? I think there is
> > > > a byte order error in rasops15.c .
> > > >
> > > > This patch worked for me, wondering if anyone else can confirm the error
> > > > and/or verify this fix.
> > >
> > > It's been a while since I played with this, but I think this is used for
> > > tifb (am335x SoCs, as found on the beaglebone). AFAIK It works fine for me
> > > with a 16bit display.
> > I suspect the #ifdef shouldn't check just host byte order but host byte
> > order vs. video hardware byte order. Probably needs a new rasops_info flag.
> I haven't touched this in a *very* long time, but (about early 2002)
> in rasops8.c I ended up with
> #if BYTE_ORDER == BIG_ENDIAN
> #define NEED_LITTLE_ENDIAN_STAMP RI_BSWAP
> #define NEED_LITTLE_ENDIAN_STAMP 0
> if ((ri->ri_flg & RI_BSWAP) == NEED_LITTLE_ENDIAN_STAMP)
> Don't know how correct that was, but it's been working for the endian
> permutations we have.
> Note that we apply RI_BSWAP to 32 and 15/16 bit cases in rasops.c, not
> when building stamps.
I think we need something like RI_FB_IS_BE and adjust the endianness
checks accordingly. That would also solve the igsfb thing.
Main Index |
Thread Index |