Hi Geert,

Thanks for the feedback.

On Sunday 31 July 2011 22:32:42 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:51, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

quoted

As for struct fb_var_screeninfo fields to support switching to a FOURCC
mode, I also prefer an explicit dedicated flag to specify switching to
it. Even though using FOURCC doesn't fit under the notion of a
videomode, using one of .vmode bits is too tempting, so, I would
actually take the plunge and use FB_VMODE_FOURCC.

Another option would be to consider any grayscale > 1 value as a FOURCC.
I've briefly checked the in-tree drivers: they only assign grayscale
with 0 or 1, and check whether grayscale is 0 or different than 0. If a
userspace application only sets grayscale > 1 when talking to a driver
that supports the FOURCC-based API, we could get rid of the flag.

What can't be easily found out is whether existing applications set
grayscale to a > 1 value. They would break when used with FOURCC-aware
drivers if we consider any grayscale > 1 value as a FOURCC. Is that a
risk we can take ?

I think we can. I'd expect applications to use either 1 or -1 (i.e. all
ones), both are invalid FOURCC values.

OK.

Still, I prefer the nonstd way.
And limiting traditional nonstd values to the lowest 24 bits (there
are no in-tree drivers using the highest 8 bits, right?).

None that I've found. I still have a preference for the grayscale field 
though. As mentioned by Guennadi, the grayscale field would become redundant 
for FOURCC-based formats. It's then a good candidate, and would let drivers 
(and applications) do any crazy stuff they want with the nonstd field.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart