On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 08:03:56PM +0300, Topi Pohjolainen wrote: > First five patches refactor common decision making found in depth, > texture and renderbuffer surface setup logic. > > In principle, there is opportunity to share code between texture and > renderbuffer setup logic (Kenneth has experimented with this earlier [1]). > On the other hand there is also a lot of overlap between gen7 and > gen8 renderbuffer paths (same applies for paths dealing with texture > surfaces). I tried this in the last patch, and I like the way the code > looks afterwards. > > Anyway, I don't have strong preference which way to go and thought > better to share the work before running regression tests on all > SNB, IVB, HSW and BDW involved. > > This is based on Jordan's layered rendering and can be found in: > > git://people.freedesktop.org/~tpohjola/mesa:surf_state_refactor > > [1] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2013-September/044693.html > > Topi Pohjolainen (7): > i965: Refactor render target type resolving > i965/blorp: Refactor depth override > i965: Refactor renderbuffer depth override > i965: Refactor renderbuffer target override > i965: Refactor array type resolving > i965/gen7: Add support for gen8 tiling > i965: Merge common bits of gen7/8 renderbuffer surface setup > > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_context.h | 12 ++ > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_state.h | 23 +++- > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_wm_surface_state.c | 16 +++ > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen6_blorp.cpp | 21 +-- > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen6_depth_state.c | 27 +--- > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen6_surface_state.c | 18 +-- > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen7_blorp.cpp | 23 +--- > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen7_misc_state.c | 31 +---- > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen7_wm_surface_state.c | 149 > +++++++++++----------- > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen8_depth_state.c | 31 +---- > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen8_surface_state.c | 77 +---------- > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_fbo.h | 14 ++ > 12 files changed, 158 insertions(+), 284 deletions(-) >
It looks like an overall improvement to me. I don't know how I feel about patch 7. I always go back and forth on whether to combine these things. And given the amount of churn in the HW between gen7, and gen8, I am a bit hesitant. What was the reason Ken dropped that one? I didn't spot anything obviously wrong in any of the patches. Run the piglits I say -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
