On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net>
> wrote:
> > @@ -118,55 +42,25 @@ copy_miptrees(struct brw_context *brw,
> > int dst_x, int dst_y, int dst_z, unsigned dst_level,
> > int src_width, int src_height)
> > {
> > - unsigned bw, bh;
> > -
> > - if (brw->gen >= 6) {
> > - brw_blorp_copy_miptrees(brw,
> > - src_mt, src_level, src_z,
> > - dst_mt, dst_level, dst_z,
> > - src_x, src_y, dst_x, dst_y,
> > - src_width, src_height);
> > - return;
> > + if (brw->gen < 5) {
> > + /* On gen4-5, try BLT first.
> > + *
> > + * Gen4-5 have a single ring for both 3D and BLT operations, so
> there's
> > + * no inter-ring synchronization issues like on Gen6+. It is
> apparently
> > + * faster than using the 3D pipeline. Original Gen4 also has to
> rebase
> > + * and copy miptree slices in order to render to unaligned
> locations.
> > + */
> > + if (intel_miptree_copy(brw, src_mt, src_level, src_z, src_x,
> src_y,
> > + dst_mt, dst_level, dst_z, dst_x, dst_y,
> > + src_width, src_height))
> > + return;
> > }
>
> Just curious -- was that meant to be
>
> if (brw->gen <= 5) ?
>
It was... I'll send out a fix-up.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
