On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 14:43:49 -0800, Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> wrote: > While investigating an etracer issue on Ivybridge, I did a lot of careful > reading of the tracked state atoms' dirty bits. Found a bunch of issues. > Unfortunately, none of these patches fixed the issues I was seeing. > > While we're at it: BRW_NEW_CONTEXT seems like the wrong thing in basically > every case. Until we get MI_SET_CONTEXT, we always want to use NEW_BATCH. > Or am I missing something? I mean, NEW_CONTEXT won't hurt, but seems > superfluous.
1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 are Reviewed-by: Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> > I'm also uncertain whether things like gen6_cc need to listen to > BRW_NEW_STATE_BASE_ADDRESS or not. It might be more clear, but it's just NEW_BATCH anyway.
pgpmf0H2e3yiB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
