On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Brian Paul <brian.e.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Brian Paul <bri...@vmware.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to overhaul the part of Mesa related to texture memory
>> reading/writing.
>>
>> The basic idea would be to add two new driver functions:
>>
>> /**
>> * Map a 2D slice of a texture image into user space.
>> * (x,y,w,h) defines a region of interest (ROI). Reading/writing
>> * texels outside of the ROI is undefined.
>> *
>> * \param texObj the texture object
>> * \param level the mipmap level
>> * \param faceSlice the cube face or 3D/array image slice
>> * \param x, y, w, h region of interest
>> * \param mode bitmask of GL_MAP_READ_BIT, GL_MAP_WRITE_BIT
>> * \param mapOut returns start of mapping of ROI
>> * \param rowStrideOut returns row stride (in bytes)
>> */
>> void (*MapTextureImage)(struct gl_context *ctx,
>> struct gl_texture_object *texObj,
>> GLuint level, GLuint faceSlice,
>> GLuint x, GLuint y, GLuint w, GLuint h,
>> GLbitfield mode,
>> GLubyte **mapOut, GLint *rowStrideOut);
>>
>> void (*UnmapTextureImage)(struct gl_context *ctx,
>> struct gl_texture_object *texObj,
>> GLuint level, GLuint faceSlice);
>>
>>
>> glTexImage() would use these when loading texture data. Similarly when
>> glGetTexImage() returns texture data. swrast would also use these
>> before/after rendering.
>>
>> We'd get rid of these fields:
>>
>> struct gl_texture_image
>> {
>> ...
>> FetchTexelFuncC FetchTexelc;
>> FetchTexelFuncF FetchTexelf;
>> GLuint RowStride;
>> GLuint *ImageOffsets;
>> GLvoid *Data;
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> The texel fetch/store code would get pushed into swrast.
>>
>> The next step would be to do the same thing for renderbuffers and get rid of
>> all the Read/WriteSpan() stuff.
>>
>> After that, maybe unify texture images and renderbuffers. I think I'd like
>> to do these things step by step to avoid too much disruption.
>
>
> The map-texture-image-v4 branch that I just pushed implements this
> change. It really cleaned things up for the better and will lead to a
> few more follow-on improvements.
>
> There's no obvious regressions with swrast or the gallium drivers. I
> updated the intel driver code and tested i915 and it seems OK too, but
> I didn't do a full piglit run on it. I also updated the legacy r600
> driver in case anyone cares but didn't do any testing of it.
>
> I didn't update any of the other legacy DRI drivers. Would anyone
> object if we simply stop building mach64, r128, unichrome, sis, etc?
> I'd be happy to remove those drivers altogether for that matter.
we could EOL those in 7.11, and if anyone wants to ship them, they can
just build 7.11 for them.
Dave.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
