On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Chad Versace <chad.vers...@intel.com> wrote:
> On Sat 18 Jun 2016, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > > The docs specify that this only matters for render targets and surfaces > > used with typed dataport messages. On some platforms (gen4-6) the Depth > > field has more bits than RenderTargetViewExtent so we can have textures > > with more levels than we can render to. > > > I really want to see the commit message as a comment in the code, > because it's subtle and surprising. Without such a comment, it's > a complete mystery why the assignment is guarded by the usage flags. > After all, the PRMs say RenderTargetViewExtent is ignored when the > surface is neither a render target nor dataport surface; so > (rhetorically) why doesn't set RenderTargetViewExtent unconditionally? > Fair enough. I'll add a comment > > Insert some variant of the commit message as comment, and this is > Reviewed-by: Chad Versace <chad.vers...@intel.com> > Thanks! > Also, how did you find this subtle problem? Did a pack function throw an > assertion failure? Ian wanted me to leave the max size of 3-D textures at 2048 on gen4-5 (since they don't do layered rendering) and it would have had problems in that case. How did I find it? I knew it was a problem from when I found the 3-D texture size issue.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
