On 24 October 2011 14:17, Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> wrote:
> This rearranges the code a bit, and makes the upload of the binding
> table take only as many surfaces as there are in use.
> ---
> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vs_surface_state.c | 62
> +++++++++-------------
> 1 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vs_surface_state.c
> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vs_surface_state.c
> index bfc4f5d..0237b58 100644
> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vs_surface_state.c
> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vs_surface_state.c
> @@ -138,22 +138,6 @@ brw_update_vs_constant_surface( struct gl_context
> *ctx,
> }
> }
>
> -
> -static void
> -prepare_vs_surfaces(struct brw_context *brw)
> -{
> - int nr_surfaces = 0;
> -
> - if (brw->vs.const_bo) {
> - nr_surfaces = 1;
> - }
> -
> - if (brw->vs.nr_surfaces != nr_surfaces) {
> - brw->state.dirty.brw |= BRW_NEW_NR_VS_SURFACES;
> - brw->vs.nr_surfaces = nr_surfaces;
> - }
> -}
> -
> /**
> * Vertex shader surfaces (constant buffer).
> *
> @@ -161,36 +145,41 @@ prepare_vs_surfaces(struct brw_context *brw)
> * to be updated, and produces BRW_NEW_NR_VS_SURFACES for the VS unit and
> * CACHE_NEW_SURF_BIND for the binding table upload.
> */
> -static void upload_vs_surfaces(struct brw_context *brw)
> +static void
> +brw_upload_vs_surfaces(struct brw_context *brw)
> {
> struct gl_context *ctx = &brw->intel.ctx;
> uint32_t *bind;
> int i;
> + int nr_surfaces = 0;
> +
> + /* BRW_NEW_VS_CONSTBUF */
> + if (brw->vs.const_bo) {
> + nr_surfaces = 1;
> + brw_update_vs_constant_surface(ctx, SURF_INDEX_VERT_CONST_BUFFER);
> + }
> +
> + if (nr_surfaces != 0) {
>
This reads a little strange to me. The only way nr_surfaces can be nonzero
is if the previous if test succeeded, so why not just merge the two if
statements?
> + bind = brw_state_batch(brw, AUB_TRACE_SURFACE_STATE,
> + sizeof(uint32_t) * nr_surfaces,
> + 32, &brw->vs.bind_bo_offset);
>
> - /* BRW_NEW_NR_VS_SURFACES */
> - if (brw->vs.nr_surfaces == 0) {
> + for (i = 0; i < nr_surfaces; i++) {
> + /* BRW_NEW_VS_CONSTBUF */
> + bind[i] = brw->vs.surf_offset[i];
> + }
>
This for loop also seems weird, since at this point in the code nr_surfaces
is known to be equal to 1. Why not just do "bind[0] =
brw->vs.surf_offset[0];"?
> + brw->state.dirty.brw |= BRW_NEW_VS_BINDING_TABLE;
> + } else {
> if (brw->vs.bind_bo_offset) {
> brw->state.dirty.brw |= BRW_NEW_VS_BINDING_TABLE;
> + brw->vs.bind_bo_offset = 0;
> }
> - brw->vs.bind_bo_offset = 0;
> - return;
> }
>
> - brw_update_vs_constant_surface(ctx, SURF_INDEX_VERT_CONST_BUFFER);
> -
> - /* Might want to calculate nr_surfaces first, to avoid taking up so
> much
> - * space for the binding table. (once we have vs samplers)
> - */
> - bind = brw_state_batch(brw, AUB_TRACE_SURFACE_STATE,
> - sizeof(uint32_t) * BRW_VS_MAX_SURF,
> - 32, &brw->vs.bind_bo_offset);
> -
> - for (i = 0; i < BRW_VS_MAX_SURF; i++) {
> - /* BRW_NEW_VS_CONSTBUF */
> - bind[i] = brw->vs.surf_offset[i];
> + if (brw->vs.nr_surfaces != nr_surfaces) {
> + brw->state.dirty.brw |= BRW_NEW_NR_VS_SURFACES;
> + brw->vs.nr_surfaces = nr_surfaces;
> }
> -
> - brw->state.dirty.brw |= BRW_NEW_VS_BINDING_TABLE;
> }
>
> const struct brw_tracked_state brw_vs_surfaces = {
> @@ -201,6 +190,5 @@ const struct brw_tracked_state brw_vs_surfaces = {
> BRW_NEW_BATCH),
> .cache = 0
> },
> - .prepare = prepare_vs_surfaces,
> - .emit = upload_vs_surfaces,
> + .emit = brw_upload_vs_surfaces,
> };
> --
> 1.7.7
>
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-dev mailing list
> mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
