On Tue 13 Sep 2016, Nanley Chery wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 03:51:14PM -0700, Chad Versace wrote:
> > On Wed 07 Sep 2016, Nanley Chery wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > I see. You want to avoid allocating the HiZ surface if it's never
> > rendered as a depth attachment.
> >
> > So yes, your suggestion sounds good to me.
>
> I'll actually leave it out if you don't mind. The usage check isn't
> required to get the right result.
Sure. As long as the aspect check is present, then it's good with me.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
