The whole patch set looks fine, except there is a new empty line in kernels/image_from_buffer.cl, 'git am' reports a warning on this.
-----Original Message----- From: Beignet [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:31 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Luo, Xionghu Subject: [Beignet] [Patch v2 4/4] use sampler to copy image_from_buffer to another image for verification. From: Luo Xionghu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Luo Xionghu <[email protected]> --- kernels/image_from_buffer.cl | 13 +++++++++++++ utests/image_from_buffer.cpp | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+) create mode 100644 kernels/image_from_buffer.cl diff --git a/kernels/image_from_buffer.cl b/kernels/image_from_buffer.cl new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1dc6d1a --- /dev/null +++ b/kernels/image_from_buffer.cl @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +__kernel void image_from_buffer(__read_only image2d_t src, __write_only image2d_t dst) +{ + int2 coord; + int4 color; + coord.x = (int)get_global_id(0); + coord.y = (int)get_global_id(1); + + const sampler_t sampler = CLK_NORMALIZED_COORDS_FALSE | CLK_ADDRESS_NONE | CLK_FILTER_NEAREST; + + color = read_imagei(src, sampler, coord); + write_imagei(dst, coord, color); +} + diff --git a/utests/image_from_buffer.cpp b/utests/image_from_buffer.cpp index a56e6ff..78d6797 100644 --- a/utests/image_from_buffer.cpp +++ b/utests/image_from_buffer.cpp @@ -28,6 +28,8 @@ static void image_from_buffer(void) memset(&desc, 0x0, sizeof(cl_image_desc)); memset(&format, 0x0, sizeof(cl_image_format)); + OCL_CREATE_KERNEL("image_from_buffer"); + // Setup kernel and images size_t buffer_sz = sizeof(uint32_t) * w * h; //buf_data[0] = (uint32_t*) malloc(buffer_sz); @@ -52,20 +54,38 @@ static void image_from_buffer(void) desc.buffer = buff; OCL_CREATE_IMAGE(buf[1], 0, &format, &desc, NULL); + desc.buffer = 0; + desc.image_row_pitch = 0; + OCL_CREATE_IMAGE(buf[2], CL_MEM_WRITE_ONLY, &format, &desc, NULL); + free(buf_data[0]); buf_data[0] = NULL; + OCL_SET_ARG(0, sizeof(cl_mem), &buf[1]); + OCL_SET_ARG(1, sizeof(cl_mem), &buf[2]); + + globals[0] = w; + globals[1] = h; + locals[0] = 16; + locals[1] = 4; + + OCL_NDRANGE(2); + // Check result OCL_MAP_BUFFER_GTT(0); OCL_MAP_BUFFER_GTT(1); + OCL_MAP_BUFFER_GTT(2); for (uint32_t j = 0; j < h; ++j) for (uint32_t i = 0; i < w; i++) { //printf("%d,%d\n", ((uint32_t*)buf_data[0])[j * w + i], ((uint32_t*)buf_data[1])[j * w + i]); + //printf("%d,%d,%d,%d\n", j, i, ((uint32_t*)buf_data[0])[j * w + i], ((uint32_t*)buf_data[2])[j * w + i]); OCL_ASSERT(((uint32_t*)buf_data[0])[j * w + i] == ((uint32_t*)buf_data[1])[j * w + i]); + OCL_ASSERT(((uint32_t*)buf_data[0])[j * w + i] == ((uint32_t*)buf_data[2])[j * w + i]); } OCL_UNMAP_BUFFER_GTT(0); OCL_UNMAP_BUFFER_GTT(1); + OCL_UNMAP_BUFFER_GTT(2); //spec didn't tell the sequence of release buffer of image. so release either buffer or image first is ok here. //we follow the rule of destroy the bo at the last release, then the access of buffer after release image is legal @@ -77,6 +97,7 @@ static void image_from_buffer(void) clReleaseMemObject(buff); clReleaseMemObject(buf[1]); #endif + clReleaseMemObject(buf[2]); } MAKE_UTEST_FROM_FUNCTION(image_from_buffer); -- 1.9.1 _______________________________________________ Beignet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/beignet _______________________________________________ Beignet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/beignet
