On Wed 12 Jul 2017, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Chad Versace <[1]chadvers...@chromium.org> > wrote: > > On Thu 29 Jun 2017, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> Why require that aux_offset > 0? Why reject images where the aux surface > precedes the primary surface? This rejection seems arbitrary. > > > All throughout these patches image->aux_offset == 0 is used for "no aux". As > you pointed out earlier, that's a bit on the bogus side but also always true. > For scanout, the hardware requires the aux buffer to be placed after the main > surface so it's not *that* bogus. I suspected that would be the answer. > The else-if-if chain here is ugly. > > > Yes it is. But I did it because it made more logical sense to me. "if we > have > a modifier, follow it for aux else follow aux_usage." However, the only > aux_usage that will ever show up here is CCS_E. > > > The inner if's condition should replace the > outer else-if's condition. > > > Here's a better idea. How about I write an intel_miptree_alloc_aux helper > function and call that for aux_usage != NONE? It can handle CCS, MCS, and HiZ > so that's all together in one place. Nice. A new function seems like the right way to do it. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
