Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net> writes:
> Okay, I'm guilty of a bikeshed here, but doesn't this look cleaner if you just
> do two for loops? One for depth, and one for levels.
>
> something like...
> const unsigned depth = mt->physical_depth0;
> for (i = 0; i < depth; i++) {
> width = mt->physical_width0;
> for (unsigned level = mt->first_level; level <= mt->last_level;
> level++) {
> intel_miptree_set_level_info(mt, level, x, 0, depth);
> mt->total_width += ALIGN(width, 64);
> width = minify(width, 1);
> }
> }I'm not sure what you mean. This function is just laying out a single array slice so the depth isn't iterated. The other array slices are laid out in brw_miptree_layout_texture_array by copying the offsets that this function generates. It is done the same way for 2D textures. It might look a bit confusing because the last three parameters of intel_miptree_set_level_info look like x-offset, y-offset and z-offset but it's actually x-offset, y-offset and depth of the entire level. The depth is the same for each level. I guess I could comment the arguments but the same problem exists in brw_miptree_layout_2d. Regards, - Neil
pgpSYPbhBmvkc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
