W dniu 28 lipca 2010 01:01 u?ytkownik Alex Deucher <alexdeucher at gmail.com> napisa?: > 2010/7/27 Rafa? Mi?ecki <zajec5 at gmail.com>: >> W dniu 27 lipca 2010 17:27 u?ytkownik Alex Deucher >> <alexdeucher at gmail.com> napisa?: >>> I'm an idiot. ?The sampler state needs to be there as it's not emitted >>> subsequently; ?I was thinking it got emitted with the texture fetch >>> constants like it does in the ddx. ?That was the issue all along. >>> Thanks for tracking that down. ?New set of patches: >>> http://people.freedesktop.org/~agd5f/reduce_emit/ >> >> Following refers to patches from ? ? ? ?27-Jul-2010 08:26. >> >> After applying all 7 patches I get hard lockup on suspend (not even >> resume!). I decided to apply one by one to track this down. >> >> Applying 0001 and 0002 doesn't cause any problem. >> >> After applying 0003 (on top of 0001 and 0002) I get hard lockup just >> like in case of all patches. Attached patch shows which part of 0003 >> has to be reverted to make suspending (and resuming) work. I think >> it's still not minimal patch (maybe reverting just part of that code >> would be enough) but hope it's small enough to give you some idea. > > Sorry, the count was wrong on that packet. ?New set of patches at the > same location: > http://people.freedesktop.org/~agd5f/reduce_emit/ > Only 0003 had changed.
Success this time! :) Thanks for fixing this. -- Rafa?
