On 8 April 2013 19:27, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> In the past, we preferred X-tiling for color buffers because our BLT
> code couldn't handle Y-tiling. However, the BLT paths have been largely
> replaced by BLORP on Gen6+, which can handle any kind of tiling.
>
> We hadn't measured any performance
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:17:39AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 07:27:38PM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> > In the past, we preferred X-tiling for color buffers because our BLT
> > code couldn't handle Y-tiling. However, the BLT paths have been largely
> > replaced by BLO
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 07:27:38PM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> In the past, we preferred X-tiling for color buffers because our BLT
> code couldn't handle Y-tiling. However, the BLT paths have been largely
> replaced by BLORP on Gen6+, which can handle any kind of tiling.
>
> We hadn't measur
Kenneth Graunke writes:
> In the past, we preferred X-tiling for color buffers because our BLT
> code couldn't handle Y-tiling. However, the BLT paths have been largely
> replaced by BLORP on Gen6+, which can handle any kind of tiling.
>
> We hadn't measured any performance improvement in the pa
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> In the past, we preferred X-tiling for color buffers because our BLT
> code couldn't handle Y-tiling. However, the BLT paths have been largely
> replaced by BLORP on Gen6+, which can handle any kind of tiling.
>
> We hadn't measured any per
In the past, we preferred X-tiling for color buffers because our BLT
code couldn't handle Y-tiling. However, the BLT paths have been largely
replaced by BLORP on Gen6+, which can handle any kind of tiling.
We hadn't measured any performance improvement in the past, but that's
probably because com
