Comment 13 for bug 1699484

Re comment #11, ignoring the size of the buffer and allowing passthrough always sounds like a good idea. At least superficially. That should be always faster and use less resources.

So we might want to find out why that 480 threshold exists at all. I would hazard a guess it is 480 because the logic did/does relate to fullscreen passthrough only at some stage. So if you're only handling fullscreen surfaces it makes sense to not bother with the overhead of allocating smaller surfaces as scanout-able. However if the logic was on its way to being generic and not for fullscreen only then I really don't know why the 480 threshold should still be there.