On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Timothy Arceri <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 21/08/17 08:58, Marek Olšák wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 12:52 AM, Timothy Arceri <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 21/08/17 03:25, Marek Olšák wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Timothy Arceri <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Shared (the default) and packed layouts are decided by the >>>>> implementation. >>>>> Currently we just pack them using the std140 layout. This change makes >>>>> it >>>>> so >>>>> we use the slightly more compact std430 layout on i965 and radeonsi. >>>>> >>>>> I doubt this will help many games, but it still seems worth >>>>> implementing. >>>>> I could only find shaders for a single game in my shader-db collection >>>>> where STD140 layout wasn't explicitly defined for UBOs, and even there >>>>> it was using vec4s so there would be no improvement. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Why having a separate codepath that only 2 drivers will use If it >>>> doesn't improve any app? >>> >>> >>> >>> I didn't say it doesn't improve any apps, presumably something uses the >>> shared and packed layout provided by the spec. I just didn't seen it in >>> my >>> quick search of my shader-db collection. >>> >>> Ignoring how many apps use it, it's not much of a separate path it mostly >>> just reuses the existing paths for SSBOs. Also if we can get SNB fixed up >>> and add support to the remaining Gallium drivers that support ubos than >>> we >>> can drop the old paths entirely. >> >> >> All Gallium drivers will never support it (unless you intent to add >> support by yourself). >> >>> >>> For radeonsi once I get LOAD working with my uniform packing series that >>> would just leave immediates using the fetch_constant() code path. >> >> >> What about Nine and VDPAU/VAAPI/OpenMAX also using CONST? >> >> Marek >> > > I wrote the series based on Nicolai's feedback as a way to get more familiar > with the LOAD implementation so I could use it with constant packing. > > Using LOAD for UBOs was suggested by Nicolai, the Intel guys are interested > in enabling this feature. Can you please point out exactly what patches you > have concern over and maybe we can focus on that? >
I skimmed over the gallium patches and they looked OK to me. I just wanted to understand the usefulness because it's a separate codepath that we know for sure that most drivers won't use. Marek _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
