On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 10:03:08AM +0100, Iago Toral wrote: > On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 10:53 +0200, Pohjolainen, Topi wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 09:36:42AM +0100, Iago Toral wrote: > > > On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 09:54 +0200, Pohjolainen, Topi wrote: > > > > 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: > > > > > > Awesome! would it be possible to run that test in g695 with the attached > > > change? If this is a regression caused by our code it should break at > > > the assert introduced with it. > > > > > > > /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 > > > > > > > > diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_eu_emit.c > > > b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_eu_emit.c > > > index 6f11f59..625447f 100644 > > > --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_eu_emit.c > > > +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_eu_emit.c > > > @@ -203,6 +203,7 @@ brw_set_dest(struct brw_codegen *p, brw_inst *inst, > > > struct brw_reg dest) > > > * or 16 (SIMD16), as that's normally correct. However, when dealing > > > with > > > * small registers, we automatically reduce it to match the register > > > size. > > > */ > > > + assert(dest.width != BRW_EXECUTE_4 || brw_inst_exec_size(devinfo, > > > inst) == dest.width); > > > if (dest.width < BRW_EXECUTE_8) > > > brw_inst_set_exec_size(devinfo, inst, dest.width); > > > } > > > > Hmm, on top of your series this looks: > > > > /* Generators should set a default exec_size of either 8 (SIMD4x2 or > > SIMD8) > > * or 16 (SIMD16), as that's normally correct. However, when dealing > > with > > * small registers, we automatically reduce it to match the register > > size. > > * > > * In platforms that support fp64 we can emit instructions with a width > > of > > * 4 that need two SIMD8 registers and an exec_size of 8 or 16. In these > > * cases we need to make sure that these instructions have their exec > > sizes > > * set properly when they are emitted and we can't rely on this code to > > fix > > * it. > > */ > > bool fix_exec_size; > > if (devinfo->gen >= 6) > > fix_exec_size = dest.width < BRW_EXECUTE_4; > > else > > fix_exec_size = dest.width < BRW_EXECUTE_8; > > > > if (fix_exec_size) > > brw_inst_set_exec_size(devinfo, inst, dest.width); > > > > Do you want the assertion before or after fixing? > > > > Before, you can put it right after that comment. Thanks!
That is what I thought. Hold on, I'll give it a spin. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
