Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH v2 09/20] i965/fs: indirect addressing with doubles is not supported in IVB/BYT

2017-02-12 Thread Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez
On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 10:10 -0800, Francisco Jerez wrote: > Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez writes: > > > On Thu, 2017-02-09 at 12:18 -0800, Francisco Jerez wrote: > > > Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez writes: > > > > > > > It is tested empirically that IVB/BYT

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH v2 09/20] i965/fs: indirect addressing with doubles is not supported in IVB/BYT

2017-02-10 Thread Francisco Jerez
Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez writes: > On Thu, 2017-02-09 at 12:18 -0800, Francisco Jerez wrote: >> Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez writes: >> >> > It is tested empirically that IVB/BYT don't support indirect >> > addressing >> > with doubles but it is not

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH v2 09/20] i965/fs: indirect addressing with doubles is not supported in IVB/BYT

2017-02-10 Thread Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez
On Thu, 2017-02-09 at 12:18 -0800, Francisco Jerez wrote: > Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez writes: > > > It is tested empirically that IVB/BYT don't support indirect > > addressing > > with doubles but it is not documented in the PRM. > > > > This patch applies the same

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH v2 09/20] i965/fs: indirect addressing with doubles is not supported in IVB/BYT

2017-02-09 Thread Francisco Jerez
Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez writes: > It is tested empirically that IVB/BYT don't support indirect addressing > with doubles but it is not documented in the PRM. > > This patch applies the same solution than for Cherryview/Broxton and > takes into account that we cannot

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH v2 09/20] i965/fs: indirect addressing with doubles is not supported in IVB/BYT

2017-02-01 Thread Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez
On Mon, 2017-01-23 at 15:52 +0100, Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez wrote: > On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 13:41 -0800, Matt Turner wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez > > wrote: > > > It is tested empirically that IVB/BYT don't support indirect > > >

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH v2 09/20] i965/fs: indirect addressing with doubles is not supported in IVB/BYT

2017-01-23 Thread Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez
On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 13:41 -0800, Matt Turner wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez > wrote: > > It is tested empirically that IVB/BYT don't support indirect > > addressing > > with doubles but it is not documented in the PRM. > > > > This

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH v2 09/20] i965/fs: indirect addressing with doubles is not supported in IVB/BYT

2017-01-20 Thread Matt Turner
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez wrote: > It is tested empirically that IVB/BYT don't support indirect addressing > with doubles but it is not documented in the PRM. > > This patch applies the same solution than for Cherryview/Broxton and > takes

[Mesa-dev] [PATCH v2 09/20] i965/fs: indirect addressing with doubles is not supported in IVB/BYT

2017-01-17 Thread Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez
It is tested empirically that IVB/BYT don't support indirect addressing with doubles but it is not documented in the PRM. This patch applies the same solution than for Cherryview/Broxton and takes into account that we cannot double the stride, since the hardware will do it internally. v2: - Fix