On 13 June 2016 at 16:10, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On 11 June 2016 at 17:02, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote: >> >> > The next 20 patches or so are general ISL cleanups and fixes. If no one >> > is >> > too opposed, I'd like to back-port the whole pile to 12.0. There are >> > two >> > reasons for this: First, ISL is new and this is a substantial cleanup; >> > back-porting it will make back-porting will keep the initial release of >> > ISL >> > cleaner and make back-porting other patches easier in the future. >> > Second, >> > in the middle of the series are a couple of changes that fix some 850 >> > Vulkan CTS tests on Haswell. >> > >> No serious objections on getting these in 12.0. A bunch of small >> suggestions though. >> >> > i965/gen4: Subtract 1 from buffer sizes >> Please polish the commit message a bit. > > > I added "The PRM states that the values put in Width, Height, and Depth > should be various bits from the value size - 1. We seem to have done this > wrong more-or-less from the start." > >> >> > isl/state: Put surface format setup at the top >> > isl/state: Put all dimension setup together and towards the top >> > isl/state: Put pitch calculations together >> Are these solely for cosmetic/ease of read reasons or there's >> something more to it ? Can you please mention in the commit message ? > > > How about: "This is purely cosmetic, but it makes things look a bit more > readable." > Both are quite good. Thanks !
>> >> > genxml: Add enough XML for gens 4, 4.5, and 5 to get SURFACE_STATE >> Let me see if I can quickly cook something for the Android build. >> >> >> > isl: Add support for filling out surface states all the way back to >> > gen4 >> Ditto. > > > If you want to give me something, I'm happy to squash it in. > Should be on the list + your inbox. >> >> >> > isl/formats: Mark RAW as having a block size of 1 byte >> Worth mentioning why we want that ? > > > That patch can actually be dropped. The original idea was that, for buffer > surfaces, we needed to divide by the element size so the size should be > non-zero. Turns out we need to divide by stride so it can be 0 and the > patch isn't needed. I'll defer to Chad on whether it should be 0 or 1. > If things change and we do want the patch, the above (or alike) as commit message would be amazing. -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
