On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 13:15:45 -0700, Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> wrote: > On 07/31/2011 07:25 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: > > On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 21:35:52 -0700, Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> > > wrote: > >> For power-of-two sizes, h0 == mt->height0 since it's already a multiple > >> of two. However, for NPOT, they're different; h1 should be computed > >> based on the original size. > >> > >> Fixes piglit test "cubemap npot" and oglconform_31 test "textureNPOT". > >> > >> NOTE: This is a candidate for stable release branches. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> > >> --- > >> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_tex_layout.c | 2 +- > >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > >> > >> Note that the piglit test referenced isn't committed yet; I sent it to the > >> piglit mailing list. > >> > >> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_tex_layout.c > >> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_tex_layout.c > >> index f462f32..46a417a 100644 > >> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_tex_layout.c > >> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_tex_layout.c > >> @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ GLboolean brw_miptree_layout(struct intel_context *intel, > >> * given in Volume 1 of the BSpec. > >> */ > >> h0 = ALIGN(mt->height0, align_h); > >> - h1 = ALIGN(minify(h0), align_h); > >> + h1 = ALIGN(minify(mt->height0), align_h); > >> qpitch = (h0 + h1 + (intel->gen >= 7 ? 12 : 11) * align_h); > >> if (mt->compressed) > >> qpitch /= 4; > > > > > > This looks wrong to me. The height of a level L is ALIGN(height0 >> L, > > j) according to SNB PRM vol1, 6.17.3.1 "Computing MIP level sizes". > > Note that our calculation of j is wrong for a bunch of hardware/format > > combos -- I wonder if that was the issue you were looking at? > > Just for the record, I talked with Eric about this in person, and he > agreed that my patch is correct. mt->height0 is H_0 (actual height) in > the PRM, while h0 is h_0 (aligned). We were using the wrong one. Also, > for the case I was looking at, j == 2, so that wasn't the issue.
More to the point, I was reading the patch as exactly reversed of what it did. So, I think that's a Reviewed-by :)
pgp76RveSgnmE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
