On Saturday, April 25, 2015 12:14:38 PM Jordan Justen wrote: > On 2015-04-24 23:38:15, Kenneth Graunke wrote: > > On Friday, April 24, 2015 04:33:11 PM Jordan Justen wrote: > > > + int dw = 0; > > > + desc[dw++] = brw->cs.base.prog_offset; > > > + if (brw->gen >= 8) > > > + dw++; /* Kernel Start Pointer High */ > > > + dw++; > > > + dw++; > > > + desc[dw++] = stage_state->bind_bo_offset; > > > + > > > > Could we just set desc[0], desc[1], etc. directly rather than having a > > variable we increment? That seems simpler to me, and matches what we do > > elsewhere in the code. > > We'd need to have: > > desc[brw->gen >= 8 ? 4 : 3] = stage_state->bind_bo_offset; > > or split filling the structure into 2 paths based on the gen. Which > seems like the better approach?
Splitting it sounds good to me.
> > > +extern "C"
> > > +const struct brw_tracked_state brw_cs_state = {
> > > + .dirty = {
> > > + .mesa = 0,
> > > + .brw = BRW_NEW_COMPUTE_PROGRAM,
> >
> > I actually don't see brw->compute_program or ctx->Shader accesses, which
> > would be covered by BRW_NEW_COMPUTE_PROGRAM. brw->cs.prog_data should
> > be covered by BRW_NEW_CS_PROG_DATA - I think you want that instead?
> > (Or, at least, in addition?)
>
> Yeah, it does seem like we need BRW_NEW_CS_PROG_DATA. I'll look into
> whether BRW_NEW_COMPUTE_PROGRAM should be dropped.
>
> -Jordan
Cool, thanks!
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
