On 12/15/2015 12:28 AM, Kristian Høgsberg Kristensen wrote:
> We can inspect VS prog_data for iterations i > 0, and only flag
> BRW_NEW_VERTICES when one of our system values change.
>
> This change also flags BRW_NEW_VERTICES in one case we were missing
> before: if we're doing an indirect draw, prims[i].basevertex is always 0
> and the real base vertex value is in the indirect parameter
> buffer. Thus, if a program uses base vertex or base instance, and the
> draw call is indirect, flag BRW_NEW_VERTICES. A new piglit test,
> spec/ARB_shader_draw_parameters/drawid-indirect-vertexid tests this.
> ---
> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_draw.c | 44
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_draw.c
> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_draw.c
> index b0710c67..9e400ca 100644
> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_draw.c
> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_draw.c
> @@ -491,9 +491,44 @@ brw_try_draw_prims(struct gl_context *ctx,
> }
> }
>
> - brw->draw.params.gl_basevertex =
> + /* Determine if we need to flag BRW_NEW_VERTICES for updating the
> + * gl_BaseVertexARB, gl_BaseInstanceARB or gl_DrawIDARB values. As
> + * above, we don't need to check first iteration, since the flag is set
> + * before the loop. We also can't rely on vs prog_data in the first
> + * iteration, but after drawing once, we've uploaded the programs and
> + * can look at prog_data.
> + *
> + * Despite the prims[] name, eache iteration correspond to a draw call
each corresponds
> + * from a glMulti* style draw call. We need to re-upload vertex state
> if
> + *
> + * 1) the program uses gl_DrawIDARB (changes every iteration),
> + *
> + * 2) the program uses gl_BaseVertexARB or gl_BaseInstanceARB and the
> + * draw call is indirect (meaning we can't check if the value
> change
> + * or not), or
> + *
> + * 3) the program uses gl_BaseVertexARB or gl_BaseInstanceARB and the
> + * value changed
> + */
> + const int new_basevertex =
> prims[i].indexed ? prims[i].basevertex : prims[i].start;
> - brw->draw.params.gl_baseinstance = prims[i].base_instance;
> + const int new_baseinstance = prims[i].base_instance;
> + if (i > 0) {
> + const bool uses_draw_parameters =
> + brw->vs.prog_data->uses_basevertex ||
> + brw->vs.prog_data->uses_baseinstance;
> +
> + if (brw->vs.prog_data->uses_drawid ||
> + (uses_draw_parameters && prims[i].is_indirect) ||
> + (brw->vs.prog_data->uses_basevertex &&
> + brw->draw.params.gl_basevertex != new_basevertex) ||
> + (brw->vs.prog_data->uses_baseinstance &&
> + brw->draw.params.gl_baseinstance != new_baseinstance))
> + brw->ctx.NewDriverState |= BRW_NEW_VERTICES;
> + }
> +
> + brw->draw.params.gl_basevertex = new_basevertex;
> + brw->draw.params.gl_baseinstance = new_baseinstance;
> drm_intel_bo_unreference(brw->draw.draw_params_bo);
>
> if (prims[i].is_indirect) {
> @@ -512,10 +547,11 @@ brw_try_draw_prims(struct gl_context *ctx,
> }
>
> /* gl_DrawID always needs its own vertex buffer since it's not part of
> - * the indirect parameter buffer. */
> + * the indirect parameter buffer.
> + */
Lol
> brw->draw.gl_drawid = prims[i].draw_id;
> drm_intel_bo_unreference(brw->draw.draw_id_bo);
> - brw->ctx.NewDriverState |= BRW_NEW_VERTICES;
> + brw->draw.draw_id_bo = NULL;
It seems odd that this change is in this patch. Should it have always
been after the drm_intel_bo_unreference call?
>
> if (brw->gen < 6)
> brw_set_prim(brw, &prims[i]);
>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
