[PATCH] Remove 24bpp support

[Keith Packard]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:05:22 -0500, Adam Jackson <ajax at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 14:54 -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:38:57 -0500, Adam Jackson <ajax at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > The 24bpp code is very poorly tested, and virtually no modern hardware
> > > implements it.  If you need a 24bpp framebuffer, use shadowfb and convert
> > > in the upload hook.
> > 
> > I tested the 24bpp fb code when I wrote it; I guess it has rotted away
> > though? There is still a huge pile of hardware which supports 24bpp, and
> > some which doesn't support 32bpp well (older mga). Seems fairly harsh to
> > remove this from the server.
> 
> The bugs I've seen seem like the kind of thing that can't ever have
> worked (24bpp surfaces turning into a8r8g8b8 pictures, that kind of
> thing).  I can dig up bz references if you like.

A list would be useful if you have one handy.

> I still think that in any environment using Render
> you're going to be better off with a blitdown in shadowfb.

That's true for almost any hardware these days, independent of bit
depth. Someday we'll have fast hardware-accelerated 2d graphics, right?

> Meh.  If we don't do this I'll just fix building 24bpp support out.  I'm
> perfectly willing to say that 24bpp-only chips are too short to ride.

Just pains me to abandon so many currently working configurations. 24bpp
means getting decent color on a 4MB card up to 1280x1024.

-- 
keith.packard at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20101112/acba42e3/attachment.pgp>