From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Smirl Subject: Re: EGL_MESA_screen_surface proposal Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:30:51 -0500 Message-ID: <9e47339105031520304154e567@mail.gmail.com> References: <4236F0A8.4000004@tungstengraphics.com> <9e47339105031507064a68630f@mail.gmail.com> <4236FC79.5000909@tungstengraphics.com> <9e4733910503150828ecf5a1b@mail.gmail.com> <1110904613.9080.62.camel@lnx-1cv4-4-110> Reply-To: Jon Smirl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <1110904613.9080.62.camel@lnx-1cv4-4-110> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xorg-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: xorg-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Michel Danzer Cc: Xserver development , fbdev , DRI-EGL On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:36:53 -0500, Michel Danzer wrote: > On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 11:28 -0500, Jon Smirl wrote: > > > > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:17:13 -0700, Brian Paul > > wrote: > > > Perhaps the eglShowSurface() and eglScreenMode() functions should be > > > combined so the new surface and new display mode can be validated > > > together. That way, the undefined state between setting the new > > > surface and new mode can be avoided. > > Makes sense to me. What if I just want to show another surface without changing the mode? I could still use a combined version and since the mode matches the mode won't actually get changed? -- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@gmail.com