[Mesa-dev] RFC: array textures in gallium and assorted cleanups

[Roland Scheidegger]

On 10.06.2010 16:16, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 07:08 -0700, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
>> On 10.06.2010 11:30, Keith Whitwell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 13:26 -0700, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I've created a new branch gallium-array-textures which has some more
>>>> interface changes, this time to support array textures basically.
>>>> Nothing has been adapted to these changes yet (I'll do that it should be
>>>> mostly trivial as long as array textures aren't actually supported by
>>>> the driver or even mesa state tracker), but now would be a good time if
>>>> you have some comments for the proposed interface changes.
>>>>
>>>> Roland
>>> Roland,
>>>
>>> This looks great!
>>>
>>> Couple of comments -- you're now using the term "layer" in various
>>> places, but there is no strong definition of what that means - except in
>>> the patch comment, which isn't useful once the patch is committed.  Can
>>> you define this term somewhere in the documentation?
>> Ok will do.
>>
>>> Also, there are a couple of things that look like typos in the interface
>>> change diff, but I'm sure you'll find those the first time you try to
>>> compile this.  eg:
>>>
>>>     void (*resource_copy_region)(struct pipe_context *pipe,
>>>                                  struct pipe_resource *dst,
>>> -                                struct pipe_subresource subdst,
>>> +                                unsigned level,
>>>                                  unsigned dstx, unsigned dsty, unsigned dstz,
>>>                                  struct pipe_resource *src,
>>> -                                struct pipe_subresource subsrc,
>>> -                                unsigned srcx, unsigned srcy, unsigned srcz,
>>> -                                unsigned width, unsigned height);
>>> +                                unsigned level,
>>> +                                const struct pipe_box *);
>>>  
>>> It seems like you end up with two parameters named "level" ??
>> Yes, I had already fixed this locally.
>> create_surface also had a bug (still got passed pipe_screen instead of
>> pipe_context since it moved to context), as well as I need to store the
>> context itself in pipe_surface (much like pipe_sampler_view does).
>> That actually was a bit non-trivial since some state trackers don't
>> really have a context handy when they called the former
>> get_tex_surface() (glx, wgl and so on statetrackers not the rendering
>> ones). Some of them did, though, already have their own context (for
>> resource_copy_region, for instance) so I'm about to do this in a similar
>> fashion.
>> Actually, I was wondering if surface_destroy() should also get passed in
>> a context - seems strange since it already stores the context, but this
>> is exactly what sampler_view_destroy() does, which I'd like to see as a
>> very analogous function.
> 
> Yes, it should take a context, mainly for consistency.  It helps when
> wrapping/unwrapping these functions to have a consistent interface.  
Ok will add that then.

Roland