On 10 Apr 2002, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 01:52, Leif Delgass wrote: > > On 10 Apr 2002, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 01:01, Leif Delgass wrote: > > > > > > > The mach64 can only use a 16-bit depth buffer, even with a 32bpp framebuffer, > > > > so I'm also interested in this. I couldn't see a way to request a > > > > smaller buffer from the XFree framebuffer manager (currently we > > > > allocate a 32-bit depth buffer, but are only using 16-bit z-buffer > > > > depth). > > > > > > What prevents you from reserving less space for the depth buffer? > > > > Well, maybe I'm just being dense (it's been known to happen), but it > > looked as though the xf86AllocateOffscreenArea function used to create the > > depth buffer assumes the bit depth to be equal to the framebuffer bit > > depth. You pass width and height in pixels, but there's no parameter for > > bit depth. > > But you can pass it a smaller height and/or width for the depth buffer, > can't you? It's just a complicated way to measure the amount of memory > needed.
Well, I just reworked the allocation to pretend there are half as many scanlines in the depth buffer at 32fbbpp and it worked, so I guess the answer is yes. Mach64 doesn't have XAA 2D accel enabled now, so I just want to make sure that there isn't a problem there, but it would seem you are right. I went from 2112K texture mem to 3072K at 800x600 @32bpp. Thanks! -- Leif Delgass http://www.retinalburn.net _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
