On 12.09.2014 03:39, Tom Stellard wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:24:03PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On 10.09.2014 22:59, Tom Stellard wrote:
+ /* Always use the default config when all backends are enabled.
*/
+ if (rb_mask && util_bitcount(rb_mask) < max_backends) {
+ /* XXX: I can't figure out what the *_XSEL and *_YSEL
+ * fields are for, so I'm leaving them as their default
+ * values. */
+ unsigned pkr_mask = (sh_per_se | 0x1);
+ unsigned se0_pkr0 = rb_mask & pkr_mask;
+ unsigned se0_pkr1 = (rb_mask >>= sh_per_se) & pkr_mask;
+ unsigned se1_pkr0 = (rb_mask >>= sh_per_se) & pkr_mask;
+ unsigned se1_pkr1 = (rb_mask >>= sh_per_se) & pkr_mask;
+ unsigned se_map = 0;
+ unsigned se0_pkr_map = 0;
+ unsigned se1_pkr_map = 0;
+ unsigned se0_pkr0_rb_map = 0;
+ unsigned se0_pkr1_rb_map = 0;
+ unsigned se1_pkr0_rb_map = 0;
+ unsigned se1_pkr1_rb_map = 0;
+ if (!se0_pkr0 && !se0_pkr1) {
+ /* se0 disabled */
+ se_map |= 0x1;
+ }
+ if (se1_pkr0 || se1_pkr1) {
+ /* se1 enabled */
+ se_map |= 0x2;
+ }
+ if (!se0_pkr0) {
+ /* se0 pkr0 disabled */
+ se0_pkr_map |= 0x1;
+ }
+ if (se0_pkr1) {
+ /* se0 pkr1 enabled */
+ se0_pkr_map |= 0x2;
+ }
+ if (!se1_pkr0) {
+ /* se1 pkr0 disabled */
+ se1_pkr_map |= 0x1;
+ }
+ if (se1_pkr1) {
+ /* se1 pkr1 enabled */
+ se1_pkr_map |= 0x2;
+ }
+
+ se0_pkr0_rb_map = pkr_mask_to_map(se0_pkr0);
+ se0_pkr1_rb_map = pkr_mask_to_map(se0_pkr1);
+ se1_pkr0_rb_map = pkr_mask_to_map(se1_pkr0);
+ se1_pkr1_rb_map = pkr_mask_to_map(se1_pkr1);
+
+ assert(!se0_pkr0 || !se1_pkr0 || (se0_pkr0_rb_map ==
se1_pkr0_rb_map));
+ assert(!se0_pkr1 || !se1_pkr1 || (se0_pkr1_rb_map ==
se1_pkr1_rb_map));
+ raster_config &= C_028350_RB_MAP_PKR0;
+ raster_config |= S_028350_RB_MAP_PKR0(se0_pkr0_rb_map);
+ raster_config &= C_028350_RB_MAP_PKR1;
+ raster_config |= S_028350_RB_MAP_PKR1(se0_pkr1_rb_map);
+ raster_config &= C_028350_PKR_MAP;
+ raster_config |= S_028350_PKR_MAP(se0_pkr_map);
+ raster_config &= C_028350_SE_MAP;
+ raster_config |= S_028350_SE_MAP(se_map);
+ }
Taking a closer look again at the kernel code and register spec, I'm
afraid this logic is too static. I came up with the attached
incremental patch. It tries to only modify raster_config as
necessary, i.e. only if there are two SEs / packers per SE / RBs per
packer but one of them is disabled. The result may be different
between SEs.
Does this mean that different values of R_028350_PA_SC_RASTER_CONFIG will
be written depending on the SE?
Yes.
My understanding was that this register stored the information for both
SEs, so the same value would be used for> SE0 and SE1.
The PKR_MAP and RB_MAP_PKR0/1 fields could only be the same for both SEs
if the pattern of disabled RBs is always symmetric between the SEs (is
it?), and the description of PKR_MAP in the register spec explicitly
says 'This can be unique per SE'.
The SE_MAP field value is the same for both SEs though.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
