On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 09:57:08AM -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Pohjolainen, Topi <
> > topi.pohjolai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 04:30:19PM -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> >> > This commit adds a new unified interface for doing resolves. The basic
> >> > format is that, prior to any surface access such as texturing or
> >> > rendering, you call intel_miptree_prepare_access. If the surface was
> >> > written, you call intel_miptree_finish_write. These two functions take
> >> > parameters which tell them whether or not auxiliary compression and fast
> >> > clears are supported on the surface. Later commits will add wrappers
> >> > around these two functions for texturing, rendering, etc.
> >> > ---
> >> > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.c | 156
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >> > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.h | 80 +++++++++++++
> >> > 2 files changed, 232 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.c
> >> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.c
> >> > index 6cd32ce..0659e75 100644
> >> > --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.c
> >> > +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.c
> >> > @@ -2028,8 +2028,7 @@ bool
> >> > intel_miptree_all_slices_resolve_hiz(struct brw_context *brw,
> >> > struct intel_mipmap_tree *mt)
> >> > {
> >> > - return intel_miptree_depth_hiz_resolve(brw, mt,
> >> > - 0, UINT32_MAX, 0, UINT32_MAX,
> >> > + return intel_miptree_depth_hiz_resolve(brw, mt, 0, UINT32_MAX, 0,
> >> UINT32_MAX,
> >> > BLORP_HIZ_OP_HIZ_RESOLVE);
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > @@ -2037,8 +2036,7 @@ bool
> >> > intel_miptree_all_slices_resolve_depth(struct brw_context *brw,
> >> > struct intel_mipmap_tree *mt)
> >> > {
> >> > - return intel_miptree_depth_hiz_resolve(brw, mt,
> >> > - 0, UINT32_MAX, 0, UINT32_MAX,
> >> > + return intel_miptree_depth_hiz_resolve(brw, mt, 0, UINT32_MAX, 0,
> >> UINT32_MAX,
> >> > BLORP_HIZ_OP_DEPTH_RESOLVE);
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > @@ -2221,6 +2219,156 @@ intel_miptree_all_slices_resolve_color(struct
> >> brw_context *brw,
> >> > intel_miptree_resolve_color(brw, mt, 0, UINT32_MAX, 0, UINT32_MAX,
> >> flags);
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > +void
> >> > +intel_miptree_prepare_access(struct brw_context *brw,
> >> > + struct intel_mipmap_tree *mt,
> >> > + uint32_t start_level, uint32_t num_levels,
> >> > + uint32_t start_layer, uint32_t num_layers,
> >> > + bool aux_supported, bool
> >> fast_clear_supported)
> >>
> >> Well, I might as well throw in my preference on using enumarated flags
> >> instead
> >> of booleans. In call sites, for exmaple,
> >>
> >> intel_miptree_prepare_access(brw, mt, start_level, num_levels,
> >> start_layer, num_layers,
> >> INTEL_SUPPORT_AUX |
> >> INTEL_SUPPORT_FAST_CLEAR);
> >>
> >> is more informative than
> >>
> >> intel_miptree_prepare_access(brw, mt, start_level, num_levels,
> >> start_layer, num_layers,
> >> true, true);
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, it is. I'll give it a go and see what it looks like.
> >
> >
> >> Former also allows adding more flags without changing the signature.
> >>
> >
> > I'm not sure if that's actually a feature... People tend to expand flags
> > fields without thinking about what they're doing. :-) But I agree that
> > labels are nice.
> >
>
> I gave this a go. Take a look at the top patch on
>
> https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~jekstrand/mesa/log/?h=wip/
> i965-resolve-rework-v3
>
> I'm not sure I actually like the result. Here's some thoughts:
>
> 1) It is somewhat more explicit what you support from the call.
>
> 2) If you don't support aux at all, then it becomes 0 which is less clear
> than false, false.
>
> 3) Very few things call prepare_access directly.
>
> 4) Things are fairly firmly structured on the two bits right now. If
> someone adds a third flag without thinking carefully about it and plumbing
> it through to everything, they will break things. Having them be separate
> parameters forces you to think about it at every stage.
>
> 5) I was renaming parameters in the special-case prepare_access functions
> so, for instance, the HiZ version had hiz_supported and
> fast_clear_supported. We can't do this anymore.
>
> 6) It's actually a bit more awkward to construct a set of flags than to
> construct a pair of booleans. Not bad, but mildly annoying.
Agreed. Lets drop that idea. The more I read, the more I saw cases where you
didn't just pass true or false but nicely named helper variables. All those
cases would just get unnecessarily complicated with the flags.
>
> 7) It's unclear what to do with finish_write since it only takes one
> boolean.
>
> All in all, I'm not incredibly pleased with the change. While I agree in
> general that flags are better than a pile of bools, I think the bools make
> more sense here given how many layers of plumbing there are. I'm willing
> to change it if you really want but it doesn't seem all that compelling.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
