Looks alright to me (albeit I still don't really understand what this bit does with the various clauses...)
Reviewed-by: Roland Scheidegger <srol...@vmware.com> Am 01.02.2018 um 03:01 schrieb Dave Airlie: > From: Dave Airlie <airl...@redhat.com> > > the vpm bit wasn't being applied to the push/pop instructions. > > Signed-off-by: Dave Airlie <airl...@redhat.com> > --- > src/gallium/drivers/r600/eg_asm.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/src/gallium/drivers/r600/eg_asm.c > b/src/gallium/drivers/r600/eg_asm.c > index f8651bd..c03a9d8 100644 > --- a/src/gallium/drivers/r600/eg_asm.c > +++ b/src/gallium/drivers/r600/eg_asm.c > @@ -137,6 +137,7 @@ int eg_bytecode_cf_build(struct r600_bytecode *bc, struct > r600_bytecode_cf *cf) > /* other instructions */ > bc->bytecode[id++] = S_SQ_CF_WORD0_ADDR(cf->cf_addr >> > 1); > bc->bytecode[id] = S_SQ_CF_WORD1_CF_INST(opcode) | > + S_SQ_CF_WORD1_VALID_PIXEL_MODE(cf->vpm) > | > S_SQ_CF_WORD1_BARRIER(1) | > S_SQ_CF_WORD1_COND(cf->cond) | > S_SQ_CF_WORD1_POP_COUNT(cf->pop_count) | > _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
