On 17 May 2013 19:11, Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com> wrote:
> Rather than pointing the surface_state directly at a single
> sub-image of the texture for rendering, we now point the
> surface_state at the top level of the texture, and configure
> the surface_state as needed based on this.
>
> We now also need to stop setting the FORCE_ZERO_RTAINDEX bit
> in the clip date so render target array values other than zero
> will be used.
>
Clarifying question to make sure I understand the purpose of this patch: it
looks to me like you are *not* trying to enable support for gl_Layer (and
layered framebuffer attachments) in this patch; you are merely changing the
way SURFACE_STATE gets configured as a preparatory step, and you'll be
adding gl_Layer support later. Is that correct?
If so, I think the subject line is a little misleading--"add support for"
frequently means "add a user-visible feature" and I think someone could
easily misunderstand this patch to be adding gl_Layer support. To clarify
that there's no user-visible change involved here, perhaps we should say
something like "use SURFACE_STATE fields to select level/layer to render
to", or "stop using X/Y offsets to select level/layer to render to".
>
> Signed-off-by: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com>
> ---
> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_defines.h | 2 +
> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen7_clip_state.c | 3 +-
> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen7_wm_surface_state.c | 63
> +++++++++++++++------
> 3 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_defines.h
> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_defines.h
> index fedd78c..d61151f 100644
> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_defines.h
> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_defines.h
> @@ -539,6 +539,8 @@
> #define GEN7_SURFACE_MULTISAMPLECOUNT_8 (3 << 3)
> #define GEN7_SURFACE_MSFMT_MSS (0 << 6)
> #define GEN7_SURFACE_MSFMT_DEPTH_STENCIL (1 << 6)
> +#define GEN7_SURFACE_MIN_ARRAY_ELEMENT_SHIFT 18
> +#define GEN7_SURFACE_RENDER_TARGET_VIEW_EXTENT_SHIFT 7
>
> /* Surface state DW5 */
> #define BRW_SURFACE_X_OFFSET_SHIFT 25
> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen7_clip_state.c
> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen7_clip_state.c
> index 29a5ed5..1256f32 100644
> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen7_clip_state.c
> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen7_clip_state.c
> @@ -107,8 +107,7 @@ upload_clip_state(struct brw_context *brw)
> GEN6_CLIP_XY_TEST |
> dw2);
> OUT_BATCH(U_FIXED(0.125, 3) << GEN6_CLIP_MIN_POINT_WIDTH_SHIFT |
> - U_FIXED(255.875, 3) << GEN6_CLIP_MAX_POINT_WIDTH_SHIFT |
> - GEN6_CLIP_FORCE_ZERO_RTAINDEX);
> + U_FIXED(255.875, 3) << GEN6_CLIP_MAX_POINT_WIDTH_SHIFT);
>
This doesn't seem right to me--are you sure this is needed? My reading of
the bspec is that min_array_element gets applied after the clipper forces
RTA index to 0, so it should still be ok for the clipper to force RTA index
to 0 when we're rendering to a layer other than 0. It seems to me that the
only time we should clear the GEN6_CLIP_FORCE_ZERO_RTAINDEX bit is when we
want gl_Layer to take effect (which, if my earlier assumption is correct,
we don't want to do yet). And even when we do get around to enabling
gl_Layer, we won't want to do it unconditionally--we'll only want to enable
it when the current draw framebuffer is layered (because gl_Layer is
supposed to be ignored for non-layered framebuffers).
> ADVANCE_BATCH();
> }
>
> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen7_wm_surface_state.c
> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen7_wm_surface_state.c
> index 6c01545..5f15eff 100644
> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen7_wm_surface_state.c
> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen7_wm_surface_state.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
> #include "main/mtypes.h"
> #include "main/blend.h"
> #include "main/samplerobj.h"
> +#include "main/texformat.h"
> #include "program/prog_parameter.h"
>
> #include "intel_mipmap_tree.h"
> @@ -529,12 +530,13 @@ gen7_update_renderbuffer_surface(struct brw_context
> *brw,
> struct gl_context *ctx = &intel->ctx;
> struct intel_renderbuffer *irb = intel_renderbuffer(rb);
> struct intel_region *region = irb->mt->region;
> - uint32_t tile_x, tile_y;
> uint32_t format;
> /* _NEW_BUFFERS */
> gl_format rb_format = _mesa_get_render_format(ctx,
> intel_rb_format(irb));
> -
> - assert(!layered);
> + uint32_t surftype;
> + bool is_array = false;
> + int depth = rb->Depth > 0 ? rb->Depth - 1 : 0;
>
As written, the "depth" variable holds the true depth minus one (since
that's what the hardware expects in the "depth" field of SURFACE_STATE).
That makes some of the math below confusing to follow (especially the
formula "depth = (6 * (depth + 1)) - 1;"). I'd recommend storing the true
depth in the "depth" variable, and don't subtract one until you store it in
surf[3]. So this line would become "int depth = MAX(rb->Depth, 1);", and
"depth = (6 * (depth + 1)) - 1;" would become "depth *= 6;".
> + int min_array_element = 0;
>
> uint32_t *surf = brw_state_batch(brw, AUB_TRACE_SURFACE_STATE,
> 8 * 4, 32,
> &brw->wm.surf_offset[unit]);
> @@ -550,7 +552,23 @@ gen7_update_renderbuffer_surface(struct brw_context
> *brw,
> __FUNCTION__, _mesa_get_format_name(rb_format));
> }
>
> - surf[0] = BRW_SURFACE_2D << BRW_SURFACE_TYPE_SHIFT |
> + if (rb->TexImage) {
> + surftype = translate_tex_target(rb->TexImage->TexObject->Target);
> + is_array =
> _mesa_tex_target_is_array(rb->TexImage->TexObject->Target);
>
+ if (rb->TexImage->TexObject->Target == GL_TEXTURE_CUBE_MAP_ARRAY) {
> + assert(rb->Depth > 0);
> + surftype = BRW_SURFACE_2D;
> + depth = (6 * (depth + 1)) - 1;
> + } else if (rb->TexImage->TexObject->Target == GL_TEXTURE_CUBE_MAP) {
> + surftype = BRW_SURFACE_2D;
> + depth = 5;
> + is_array = true;
> + }
>
It reads awkwardly to me that in the case of GL_TEXTURE_CUBE_MAP_ARRAY and
GL_TEXTURE_CUBE_MAP we set surftype and is_array incorrectly and then
immediately override them with the correct values. Consider something like
this instead:
switch (rb->TexImage->TexObject->Target) {
case GL_TEXTURE_CUBE_MAP_ARRAY:
case GL_TEXTURE_CUBE_MAP:
surftype = BRW_SURFACE_2D;
is_array = true;
depth *=6;
break;
default:
surftype = translate_tex_target(...);
is_array = _mesa_tex_target_is_array(...);
break;
}
> + } else {
> + surftype = BRW_SURFACE_2D;
> + }
> +
> + surf[0] = surftype << BRW_SURFACE_TYPE_SHIFT |
> format << BRW_SURFACE_FORMAT_SHIFT |
> (irb->mt->array_spacing_lod0 ? GEN7_SURFACE_ARYSPC_LOD0
> : GEN7_SURFACE_ARYSPC_FULL) |
> @@ -561,24 +579,33 @@ gen7_update_renderbuffer_surface(struct brw_context
> *brw,
> if (irb->mt->align_w == 8)
> surf[0] |= GEN7_SURFACE_HALIGN_8;
>
> - /* reloc */
> - surf[1] = intel_renderbuffer_tile_offsets(irb, &tile_x, &tile_y) +
> - region->bo->offset; /* reloc */
> + if (is_array) {
> + surf[0] |= GEN7_SURFACE_IS_ARRAY;
> + }
> +
> + if (!layered) {
> + if (irb->mt->num_samples > 1) {
> + min_array_element = irb->mt_layer / irb->mt->num_samples;
> + } else {
> + min_array_element = irb->mt_layer;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + surf[1] = region->bo->offset;
>
> assert(brw->has_surface_tile_offset);
> - /* Note that the low bits of these fields are missing, so
> - * there's the possibility of getting in trouble.
> - */
> - assert(tile_x % 4 == 0);
> - assert(tile_y % 2 == 0);
> - surf[5] = SET_FIELD(tile_x / 4, BRW_SURFACE_X_OFFSET) |
> - SET_FIELD(tile_y / 2, BRW_SURFACE_Y_OFFSET);
>
> - surf[2] = SET_FIELD(rb->Width - 1, GEN7_SURFACE_WIDTH) |
> - SET_FIELD(rb->Height - 1, GEN7_SURFACE_HEIGHT);
> - surf[3] = region->pitch - 1;
> + surf[5] = irb->mt_level;
> +
> + surf[2] = SET_FIELD(irb->mt->logical_width0 - 1, GEN7_SURFACE_WIDTH) |
> + SET_FIELD(irb->mt->logical_height0 - 1, GEN7_SURFACE_HEIGHT);
> +
> + surf[3] = (depth << BRW_SURFACE_DEPTH_SHIFT) |
> + (region->pitch - 1);
>
> - surf[4] = gen7_surface_msaa_bits(irb->mt->num_samples,
> irb->mt->msaa_layout);
> + surf[4] = gen7_surface_msaa_bits(irb->mt->num_samples,
> irb->mt->msaa_layout) |
> + min_array_element << GEN7_SURFACE_MIN_ARRAY_ELEMENT_SHIFT |
> + depth << GEN7_SURFACE_RENDER_TARGET_VIEW_EXTENT_SHIFT;
>
> if (irb->mt->msaa_layout == INTEL_MSAA_LAYOUT_CMS) {
> gen7_set_surface_mcs_info(brw, surf, brw->wm.surf_offset[unit],
> --
> 1.7.10.4
>
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-dev mailing list
> mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
