On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 11:27 -0700, José Fonseca wrote:
> Hi Roland,
>
> Overall looks good. It's nice to finally have a way to export MSAA
> capabilities, and see the pipe_surfaces use being more constrained.
>
> A few comments inline, but no strong feelings so feel free to do as you
> wish.
> > diff --git a/src/gallium/include/pipe/p_screen.h
> > b/src/gallium/include/pipe/p_screen.h
> > index beff1ae..1bad045 100644
> > --- a/src/gallium/include/pipe/p_screen.h
> > +++ b/src/gallium/include/pipe/p_screen.h
> > @@ -99,10 +99,19 @@ struct pipe_screen {
> > boolean (*is_format_supported)( struct pipe_screen *,
> > enum pipe_format format,
> > enum pipe_texture_target target,
> > - unsigned bindings,
> > + unsigned bindings,
> > unsigned geom_flags );
> >
> > /**
> > + * Check if the given pipe_format is supported with a requested
> > + * number of samples for msaa.
> > + * \param sample_count number of samples for multisampling
> > + */
> > + boolean (*is_msaa_supported)( struct pipe_screen *,
> > + enum pipe_format format,
> > + unsigned sample_count );
>
> Instead of a new is_msaa_support() I'd prefer see sample_count in
> is_format_supported or better, replace both with is_resource_supported
> which takes a resource template. But I understand that's a bit beyond
> the scope of this change.
Is there a reason we'd need this extra flexibility, or do you just
prefer having a single interface?
Do we need to be able to say that we can do 8x msaa for 2d rgba8
textures, but not cube? Or some other combination?
Keith
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
