Alex Deucher wrote:
Does this patch help?
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_cs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_cs.c
index d886494..e83fc88 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_cs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_cs.c
@@ -1046,7 +1046,6 @@ static void r600_texture_size(unsigned nfa
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Andy Furniss wrote:
> Jon Sturm wrote:
>
>> ut2004 has been having issues for a while so I wouldn't blame this
>> patch 100%, Then again my issues seem to be similar to
>> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27443 which may or may
>> not be related.
>
> On
Alex Deucher wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Andy Furniss wrote:
Andy Furniss wrote:
No, it does make the nunbers bigger, though -
radeon :01:00.0: mipmap bo too small (512 512 4 0 0 1048576 ->
1048576 have 1409024)
Further (non exhaustive) testing shows it regresses some mesa
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Andy Furniss wrote:
> Andy Furniss wrote:
>
>> No, it does make the nunbers bigger, though -
>>
>> radeon :01:00.0: mipmap bo too small (512 512 4 0 0 1048576 ->
>> 1048576 have 1409024)
>
> Further (non exhaustive) testing shows it regresses some mesa demos as
Andy Furniss wrote:
No, it does make the nunbers bigger, though -
radeon :01:00.0: mipmap bo too small (512 512 4 0 0 1048576 ->
1048576 have 1409024)
Further (non exhaustive) testing shows it regresses some mesa demos as
well - lodbias,reflect & shadowtex -
mipmap bo too small (256 2
Alex Deucher wrote:
Does reverting this part of the patch fix it?
@@ -1055,10 +1055,10 @@ static void r600_texture_size(unsigned nfaces,
unsigned blevel, unsigned nlevels
}
*l0_size = ALIGN((w0 * bpe), pitch_align) * h0 * d0;
*mipmap_size = offset;
- if (!blevel)
-
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Andy Furniss wrote:
> Jon Sturm wrote:
>
>> ut2004 has been having issues for a while so I wouldn't blame this
>> patch 100%, Then again my issues seem to be similar to
>> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27443 which may or may
>> not be related.
>
> On
Jon Sturm wrote:
ut2004 has been having issues for a while so I wouldn't blame this
patch 100%, Then again my issues seem to be similar to
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27443 which may or may
not be related.
Only having the demo and not seriously playing all levels (or much at
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Andy Furniss wrote:
> Alex Deucher wrote:
>>
>> - buffer offsets in the base regs are 256b aligned so
>> shift properly when comparing, fixed by Andre Maasikas
>> - mipmap size was calculated wrong when nlevel=0
>> - texture bo offsets were used after the bo base
Alex Deucher wrote:
- buffer offsets in the base regs are 256b aligned so
shift properly when comparing, fixed by Andre Maasikas
- mipmap size was calculated wrong when nlevel=0
- texture bo offsets were used after the bo base address was added
- vertex resource size register is size - 1, not siz
10 matches
Mail list logo
