On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 11:42:24AM -0700, Chad Versace wrote:
> On Thu 01 Sep 2016, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Nanley Chery <nanleych...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Chad Versace <chad.vers...@intel.com>
> >
> > Nanley Chery (amend):
> > - Remove wip! tag
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nanley Chery <nanley.g.ch...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > src/intel/vulkan/anv_private.h | 10 ++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
>
>
> > +static inline bool
> > +anv_image_has_hiz(const struct anv_image *image)
> > +{
> > + /* We must check the usage because anv_image::hiz_surface belongs to
> > + * a union.
> > + */
> > + return (image->usage & VK_IMAGE_USAGE_DEPTH_STENCIL_ATTACHMENT_BIT)
> > &&
> >
> >
> > Would checking (image->aspects & VK_IMAGE_ASPECT_DEPTH_BIT) be more
> > appropriate?
>
> I agree. VK_IMAGE_ASPECT_DEPTH_BIT makes more sense.
>
> Also, that's what the documentation for anv_image says, quoted below:
>
> struct anv_image {
> ...
>
> /**
> * Image subsurfaces
> *
> * For each foo, anv_image::foo_surface is valid if and only if
> * anv_image::aspects has a foo aspect.
> *
> * ...
> */
> union {
> struct anv_surface color_surface;
>
> struct {
> struct anv_surface depth_surface;
> struct anv_surface stencil_surface;
>
> };
> };
> };
>
Sure. Thanks for the documentation quote.
A HiZ surface is created for a depth image if both usage and aspect conditions
are satisfied. Would it be better for me to add the aspect check instead of
replacing the usage check with it?
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
