On 2015-08-27 23:07:26, Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez wrote: > > On 28/08/15 08:06, Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez wrote: > > > > On 28/08/15 02:21, Jordan Justen wrote: > >> On 2015-08-05 01:30:12, Iago Toral Quiroga wrote: > >>> From: Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez <sigles...@igalia.com> > >>> > >>> Notice that Skylake needs to include a header in the sampler message > >>> so it will need some tweaks to work there. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez <sigles...@igalia.com> > >>> --- > >>> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_defines.h | 3 ++ > >>> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_shader.cpp | 3 ++ > >>> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4.cpp | 1 + > >>> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4.h | 6 ++++ > >>> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_generator.cpp | 31 ++++++++++++++++ > >> > >>> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_visitor.cpp | 46 > >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++-- > >> > >> Shouldn't this be in brw_vec4_nir.cpp instead? > >> > > > > I wrote this patch before vec4 NIR backend was upstreamed. I have a > > separate patch that adds a similar code to vec4 nir backend.
Did this make it into v4? > > Or do you suggest to delete this patch? > > > > I mean: delete brw_vec4_visitor.cpp changes from this patch and add > brw_vec4_nir.cpp changes to it. I think the nir path is the priority. I skimmed the series a bit and it didn't seem like this array length part was enabled on the nir path. I don't think there's a need to enable the non-nir path. But, if you somehow find it useful for debugging, then you can leave the non-nir path. I think that going forward we should only implement new features on the nir path, and I assume sometime before the next release branch we'll delete the non-nir vec4 path. (That's how it happened with the scalar side anyway.) -Jordan _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
