[SNIP] > > > > > I also don't like that this way there is no difference between > > > explicit and implicit kernel arguments. On the other hand it's simple, > > > and does not need additional per driver code. > > > > > Yeah... We definitely want to hide these from the user, as e.g. the > > CL_KERNEL_NUM_ARGS param is required by the spec to return the number of > > arguments provided by the user, and we don't want the user to set > > implicit args, so it gets a bit messy. I think I like better your > > original idea of passing them as launch_grid() arguments, even though > > the grid offset and dimension parameters are somewhat artificial from a > > the hardware's point of view. > > sorry to bug you some more with this. I tried one more thing before > going back to the launch_grid parameters. this time it implements a > parallel infrastructure for implicit arguments by creating artificial > module arguments for uint and size_t (I don't think we need more for > implicit arguments). > > I only added the work dimension argument but adding more should be easy. > If you think that the launch_grid way is better, I'll stop experimenting > as I ran out of ideas I wanted to try.
ping should I just resend using git instead of attachments? > > thanks, > jan [SNIP] -- Jan Vesely <jan.ves...@rutgers.edu>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
