On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 03:32:28PM -0800, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> I hadn't bothered to set this bit because I figured it would just
> paper over us getting the rectangle wrong. But it turns out that
> there is a legitimate reason to use it, so let's do so.
>
> The alternative would be to chop
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> I hadn't bothered to set this bit because I figured it would just
> paper over us getting the rectangle wrong. But it turns out that
> there is a legitimate reason to use it, so let's do so.
>
> The alternative
I hadn't bothered to set this bit because I figured it would just
paper over us getting the rectangle wrong. But it turns out that
there is a legitimate reason to use it, so let's do so.
The alternative would be to chop up 16k clears to multiple 8k clears,
which is pointlessly painful.