Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] Re: FBdev updates.

[James S. <jsi...@in...>]

> >   And one (or two...) generic questions: why is not pseudo_palette
> > u32* pseudo_palette, or even directly u32 pseudo_palette[17] ?
> 
> Yes, all drivers should treat the pseudo_palette as u32* anyway, so why
> not change pseudo-palette from void* to u32*?

See other email.

> > And why we do not fill this pseudo_palette with
> > i * 0x01010101U for 8bpp pseudocolor and i * 0x11111111U for 4bpp
> > pseudocolor? This allowed me to remove couple of switches and tests
> > from acceleration fastpaths (and from cfb_imageblit and cfb_fillrect,
> > but I did not changed these two in my benchmarks below).
> 
> I also agree for a different reason.  Cards with unconventional formats
> (such as monochrome at 8 bpp - 0 for black , 0xff for white) will not
> work with the current code.

Isn't that the job of setcolreg?