On Tue, 2019-01-22 at 15:46 -0800, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 5:55 AM Iago Toral Quiroga > wrote:
> >
> > This is available since gen8.
> >
> > v2: restore previously existing assertion.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Topi Pohjolainen (v1)
> > ---
> > src/intel/compiler/brw_reg_type.c | 36
> > +++
> > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/intel/compiler/brw_reg_type.c
> > b/src/intel/compiler/brw_reg_type.c
> > index 60240ba1513..09b3ea61d4c 100644
> > --- a/src/intel/compiler/brw_reg_type.c
> > +++ b/src/intel/compiler/brw_reg_type.c
> > @@ -138,6 +138,7 @@ enum hw_3src_reg_type {
> > GEN7_3SRC_TYPE_D = 1,
> > GEN7_3SRC_TYPE_UD = 2,
> > GEN7_3SRC_TYPE_DF = 3,
> > + GEN8_3SRC_TYPE_HF = 4,
> >
> > /** When ExecutionDatatype is 1: @{ */
> > GEN10_ALIGN1_3SRC_REG_TYPE_HF = 0b000,
> > @@ -166,6 +167,14 @@ static const struct hw_3src_type {
> > [BRW_REGISTER_TYPE_D] = { GEN7_3SRC_TYPE_D },
> > [BRW_REGISTER_TYPE_UD] = { GEN7_3SRC_TYPE_UD },
> > [BRW_REGISTER_TYPE_DF] = { GEN7_3SRC_TYPE_DF },
> > +}, gen8_hw_3src_type[] = {
> > + [0 ... BRW_REGISTER_TYPE_LAST] = { INVALID },
> > +
> > + [BRW_REGISTER_TYPE_F] = { GEN7_3SRC_TYPE_F },
> > + [BRW_REGISTER_TYPE_D] = { GEN7_3SRC_TYPE_D },
> > + [BRW_REGISTER_TYPE_UD] = { GEN7_3SRC_TYPE_UD },
> > + [BRW_REGISTER_TYPE_DF] = { GEN7_3SRC_TYPE_DF },
> > + [BRW_REGISTER_TYPE_HF] = { GEN8_3SRC_TYPE_HF },
> > }, gen10_hw_3src_align1_type[] = {
> > #define E(x) BRW_ALIGN1_3SRC_EXEC_TYPE_##x
> > [0 ... BRW_REGISTER_TYPE_LAST] = { INVALID },
> > @@ -249,6 +258,20 @@ brw_hw_type_to_reg_type(const struct
> > gen_device_info *devinfo,
> > unreachable("not reached");
> > }
> >
> > +static inline const struct hw_3src_type *
> > +get_hw_3src_type_map(const struct gen_device_info *devinfo,
> > uint32_t *size)
> > +{
> > + if (devinfo->gen < 8) {
> > + if (size)
> > + *size = ARRAY_SIZE(gen7_hw_3src_type);
> > + return gen7_hw_3src_type;
> > + } else {
> > + if (size)
> > + *size = ARRAY_SIZE(gen8_hw_3src_type);
> > + return gen8_hw_3src_type;
> > + }
> > +}
>
> I would rather inline this code and remove the function, like we
> already do for example:
>
>const struct hw_type *table;
>
>if (devinfo->gen >= 11) {
> assert(type < ARRAY_SIZE(gen11_hw_type));
> table = gen11_hw_type;
>} else {
> assert(type < ARRAY_SIZE(gen4_hw_type));
> table = gen4_hw_type;
>}
>
> But I'm not even sure that separate gen7 vs gen8 tables are required,
> since gen8 just adds one additional value. I thought we had some code
> that essentially did assert(devinfo->gen >= 8 || type !=
> BRW_REGISTER_TYPE_HF), but I don't see it now.
I am liking the idea though, as you say, there is only one value that
changes after all... should I make that change? (and rename the table
to be prefixed by gen8_ instead of gen_7.
> We have checks that Q/UQ/DF are only used when 64-bit hw support is
> available, so maybe that's what I'm thinking of.
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
