[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 02/17] ac/surface: don't set the display flag for obviously unsupported cases
Marek Olšák
maraeo at gmail.com
Fri Apr 6 17:14:02 UTC 2018
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote:
> On 2018-04-06 03:25 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018, 3:09 AM Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote:
> >> On 2018-04-04 07:35 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> On 2018-04-04 02:57 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018, 6:18 AM Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net
> >>>>> <mailto:michel at daenzer.net>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 2018-04-04 03:59 AM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> >>>>> > From: Marek Olšák <marek.olsak at amd.com <mailto:
> >> marek.olsak at amd.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > This enables the tile swizzle for some cases of the displayable
> >>>>> micro mode,
> >>>>> > and it also fixes an addrlib assertion failure on Vega.
> >>>>> > ---
> >>>>> > src/amd/common/ac_surface.c | 18 ++++++++++++++----
> >>>>> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > diff --git a/src/amd/common/ac_surface.c
> >>>> b/src/amd/common/ac_surface.c
> >>>>> > index b294cd85259..2b20a553d51 100644
> >>>>> > --- a/src/amd/common/ac_surface.c
> >>>>> > +++ b/src/amd/common/ac_surface.c
> >>>>> > @@ -408,20 +408,29 @@ static unsigned
> >>>>> cik_get_macro_tile_index(struct radeon_surf *surf)
> >>>>> > tileb = 8 * 8 * surf->bpe;
> >>>>> > tileb = MIN2(surf->u.legacy.tile_split, tileb);
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > for (index = 0; tileb > 64; index++)
> >>>>> > tileb >>= 1;
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > assert(index < 16);
> >>>>> > return index;
> >>>>> > }
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > +static bool get_display_flag(const struct ac_surf_config
> >> *config,
> >>>>> > + const struct radeon_surf *surf)
> >>>>> > +{
> >>>>> > + return surf->flags & RADEON_SURF_SCANOUT &&
> >>>>> > + !(surf->flags & RADEON_SURF_FMASK) &&
> >>>>> > + config->info.samples <= 1 &&
> >>>>> > + surf->bpe >= 4 && surf->bpe <= 8;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> surf->bpe is the number of bytes used to store each pixel, right?
> >> If
> >>>> so,
> >>>>> this cannot exclude surf->bpe < 4, since 16 bpp and 8 bpp formats
> >>>> can be
> >>>>> displayed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sure, but what are the chances they will be displayed with the
> current
> >>>>> stack? GLX doesn't have 16bpp visuals for on-screen rendering.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe not when the X server runs at depth 24, but it can also run at
> >>>> depths 8, 15 & 16, in which case displayable surfaces with bpe == 1
> or 2
> >>>> are needed even before GLX even comes into the picture.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> OK. Let me ask differently. Do we wanna support displayable 8, 15, and
> 16
> >>> bpp?
> >>
> >> We do support it, it's not really a question of whether we want to
> >> anymore. :)
> >>
> >>> Can we just say that we don't support those?
> >>
> >> I'm afraid we can't.
> >>
> >>
> >> Which kind of surfaces are you trying to exclude like this? Maybe they
> >> can be excluded in a different way.
> >
> > Currently just the MSAA resolve temporary destination buffer.
>
> Do those actually have surf->bpe < 4? Im not getting any hits with
> glxgears -samples 8.
>
The main purpose of the patch is to fix addrlib crashes on Vega when bpe ==
16. Everything else you see in the patch is just a bonus.
Marek
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20180406/a4d8b4ee/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the mesa-dev
mailing list