On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Pohjolainen, Topi
<topi.pohjolai...@intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 01:53:52PM -0700, Jordan Justen wrote:
>> Previously array spacing lod0 was only used with a single mip level.
>>
>> It indicated that no mip level spacing should be used between array
>> slices.
>>
>> gen6 stencil only support LOD0, so we need to allocate the miptree
>> similar to array spacing lod0, except we also need space for more
>> than just one mip level.
>>
>> So, the miptree is allocated with tightly packed array slice spacing,
>> but we still also pack the miplevels into the region similar to a
>> normal multi mip level packing.
>>
>> Essentially, the miptree is set up as if the texture slices formed
>> one tall 2D texture, rather than a 2D array.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com>
>> ---
>> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_tex_layout.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_tex_layout.c
>> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_tex_layout.c
>> index 76044b2..8a0912d 100644
>> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_tex_layout.c
>> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_tex_layout.c
>> @@ -203,6 +203,11 @@ brw_miptree_layout_2d(struct intel_mipmap_tree *mt)
>> if (mt->compressed)
>> img_height /= mt->align_h;
>>
>> + if (mt->array_spacing_lod0) {
>> + /* Compact arrays with separated miplevels */
>> + img_height *= depth;
>
> I always thought arrays are only handled by
> brw_miptree_layout_texture_array().
> When do we end up here to setup an array?
brw_miptree_layout_texture_array calls brw_miptree_layout_2d.
>> + }
>> +
>> /* Because the images are packed better, the final offset
>> * might not be the maximal one:
>> */
>> @@ -238,6 +243,7 @@ brw_miptree_layout_texture_array(struct brw_context *brw,
>> struct intel_mipmap_tree *mt)
>> {
>> int h0, h1;
>> + unsigned height = mt->physical_height0;
>>
>> h0 = ALIGN(mt->physical_height0, mt->align_h);
>> h1 = ALIGN(minify(mt->physical_height0, 1), mt->align_h);
>> @@ -251,11 +257,22 @@ brw_miptree_layout_texture_array(struct brw_context
>> *brw,
>> brw_miptree_layout_2d(mt);
>>
>> for (unsigned level = mt->first_level; level <= mt->last_level; level++)
>> {
>> + unsigned img_height;
>> + img_height = ALIGN(height, mt->align_h);
>> + if (mt->compressed)
>> + img_height /= mt->align_h;
>
> This is confusing me also. You are introducing new layout for layered stencil
> only. Do we really allow compression of stencil buffers?
I guess I was just trying to generically extend array_spacing_lod0 to
multiple miplevels. It does seem like array_spacing_lod0 is no longer
the correct name in this case. How about something like
compact_arrays_separate_lods?
This is definitely one of the RFC patches. :)
-Jordan
>
>> +
>> for (int q = 0; q < mt->physical_depth0; q++) {
>> - intel_miptree_set_image_offset(mt, level, q, 0, q * physical_qpitch);
>> + if (mt->array_spacing_lod0) {
>> + intel_miptree_set_image_offset(mt, level, q, 0, q * img_height);
>> + } else {
>> + intel_miptree_set_image_offset(mt, level, q, 0, q *
>> physical_qpitch);
>> + }
>> }
>> + height = minify(height, 1);
>> }
>> - mt->total_height = physical_qpitch * mt->physical_depth0;
>> + if (!mt->array_spacing_lod0)
>> + mt->total_height = physical_qpitch * mt->physical_depth0;
>>
>> align_cube(mt);
>> }
>> --
>> 2.0.0.rc4
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
