On 04.01.2013 23:19, j.gli...@gmail.com wrote:
[SNIP]
diff --git a/src/gallium/drivers/r300/r300_emit.c
b/src/gallium/drivers/r300/r300_emit.c
index d1ed4b3..c824821 100644
--- a/src/gallium/drivers/r300/r300_emit.c
+++ b/src/gallium/drivers/r300/r300_emit.c
@@ -1184,7 +1184,8 @@ validate:
assert(tex && tex->buf && "cbuf is marked, but NULL!");
r300->rws->cs_add_reloc(r300->cs, tex->cs_buf,
RADEON_USAGE_READWRITE,
- r300_surface(fb->cbufs[i])->domain);
+ r300_surface(fb->cbufs[i])->domain,
+ RADEON_RING_DMA);
??? DMA ring on R300? At least on first glance that looks quite odd,
should probably be GFX ring instead.
}
/* ...depth buffer... */
if (fb->zsbuf) {
@@ -1192,7 +1193,8 @@ validate:
assert(tex && tex->buf && "zsbuf is marked, but NULL!");
r300->rws->cs_add_reloc(r300->cs, tex->cs_buf,
RADEON_USAGE_READWRITE,
- r300_surface(fb->zsbuf)->domain);
+ r300_surface(fb->zsbuf)->domain,
+ RADEON_RING_DMA);
Same here and repeats on a couple of more places.
[SNIP]
diff --git a/src/gallium/winsys/radeon/drm/radeon_winsys.h
b/src/gallium/winsys/radeon/drm/radeon_winsys.h
index 16536dc..5ff463e 100644
--- a/src/gallium/winsys/radeon/drm/radeon_winsys.h
+++ b/src/gallium/winsys/radeon/drm/radeon_winsys.h
@@ -43,11 +43,13 @@
#include "pipebuffer/pb_buffer.h"
#include "libdrm/radeon_surface.h"
-#define RADEON_MAX_CMDBUF_DWORDS (16 * 1024)
+#define RADEON_MAX_CMDBUF_DWORDS (16 * 1024)
-#define RADEON_FLUSH_ASYNC (1 << 0)
-#define RADEON_FLUSH_KEEP_TILING_FLAGS (1 << 1) /* needs DRM 2.12.0 */
-#define RADEON_FLUSH_COMPUTE (1 << 2)
+#define RADEON_FLUSH_ASYNC (1 << 0)
+#define RADEON_FLUSH_KEEP_TILING_FLAGS (1 << 1) /* needs DRM 2.12.0 */
+#define RADEON_FLUSH_COMPUTE (1 << 2)
+#define RADEON_FLUSH_DMA (1 << 3)
+#define RADEON_FLUSH_GFX (1 << 4)
/* Tiling flags. */
enum radeon_bo_layout {
@@ -137,12 +139,19 @@ enum chip_class {
TAHITI,
};
+enum radeon_ring_type {
+ RADEON_RING_PM4 = 0,
+ RADEON_RING_DMA = 1,
+};
+
Don't use PM4 as identifier here, the PM4 packet format is used for
other ring types beside GFX/Compute as well, but those rings can't
necessary execute GFX/Compute commands.
struct winsys_handle;
struct radeon_winsys_cs_handle;
struct radeon_winsys_cs {
- unsigned cdw; /* Number of used dwords. */
- uint32_t *buf; /* The command buffer. */
+ unsigned cdw; /* Number of used dwords. */
+ uint32_t *buf; /* The command buffer. */
+ unsigned dma_cdw; /* Number of used dwords. */
+ uint32_t *dma_buf; /* The command buffer. */
};
Why like this? Can't we just have separate instances of the
radeon_winsys_cs structure for each ring type we are dealing with?
The rest looks quite good,
Christian.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
