On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 10:48:49AM +0100, Samuel Iglesias Gons?lvez wrote: > Hello, > > There is only one patch from this series that has been reviewed (patch > 1). > > Our plans is to start sending patches for adding fp64 support to i965 > driver in the coming weeks but they depend on these patches. > > Can someone take a look at them? ;) > > Sam > > > On Thu, 2015-12-17 at 14:44 +0100, Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez wrote: > > Hello, > > > > This patch series is a updated version of the one Iago sent last > > week [0] that includes patches for gen6 too, as suggested by Jason. > > > > We checked the gen9 code paths that work with a horizontal width of 4 > > and we think there won't be any regression on gen9... but we don't > > have any gen9 machine to run piglit with these patches. Can someone > > check it?
I rebased it and ran it through the test system, gen9 seems to be fine, I only got one regression, and that was on old g965: /tmp/build_root/m64/lib/piglit/bin/ext_framebuffer_multisample-accuracy all_samples srgb depthstencil -auto -fbo Pixels that should be unlit count = 236444 RMS error = 0.025355 Pixels that should be totally lit count = 13308 Perfect output The error threshold for unlit and totally lit pixels test is 0.016650 Pixels that should be partially lit count = 12392 RMS error = 0.273876 The error threshold for partially lit pixels is 0.333000 Samples = 0, Result = fail But I'm not sure if this is caused by your patches. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
