Series
Reviewed-by: Jordan Justen jordan.l.jus...@intel.com
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 3:16 AM, Kenneth Graunke kenn...@whitecape.org wrote:
Even with the other limits raised, TestProxyTexImage would still reject
textures 1GB in size. This is an artificial limit; nothing prevents
us from having
On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 03:16:45AM -0800, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
Even with the other limits raised, TestProxyTexImage would still reject
textures 1GB in size. This is an artificial limit; nothing prevents
us from having a larger texture. I stayed shy of 2GB to avoid the
larger-than-aperture
On 02/04/2014 10:37 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 03:16:45AM -0800, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
Even with the other limits raised, TestProxyTexImage would still reject
textures 1GB in size. This is an artificial limit; nothing prevents
us from having a larger texture. I stayed
Even with the other limits raised, TestProxyTexImage would still reject
textures 1GB in size. This is an artificial limit; nothing prevents
us from having a larger texture. I stayed shy of 2GB to avoid the
larger-than-aperture situation.
For 3D textures, this raises the effective limit:
-
