On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net> wrote: > Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net> >> wrote: >>> Would be really nice if we could also get rid of reg_offset as we're at >>> it. reg and subreg_offset basically represent the same thing but with >>> different units, couldn't we just have a single offset field in bytes? >>> Should it be part of brw_reg or backend_reg? I think I would lean >>> towards backend_reg. In that case does it make sense to move this into >>> brw_reg now only to move it back to backend_reg later on? >> >> That would be nice. >> >> I'm just not sure how to do it. brw_reg has to have the subnr field, >> and it's nice if that's the field the higher levels use too. >> > I guess at this point brw_reg is just an implementation detail of > backend_reg, if some of it doesn't make sense at the IR level > (e.g. because the IR wants more than 5 bits of sub-(V)GRF offset) > there's no need to keep the IR tied up to the lower-level brw_reg > representation.
Do you have an example of where we might want a subreg_offset >= 32? I think using brw_reg is nice... it pretty simply contains the bits that are common to the IR and the hardware. I'm not finding this limiting. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
