On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 01:53:52PM -0700, Jordan Justen wrote:
> Previously array spacing lod0 was only used with a single mip level.
>
> It indicated that no mip level spacing should be used between array
> slices.
>
> gen6 stencil only support LOD0, so we need to allocate the miptree
> similar to array spacing lod0, except we also need space for more
> than just one mip level.
>
> So, the miptree is allocated with tightly packed array slice spacing,
> but we still also pack the miplevels into the region similar to a
> normal multi mip level packing.
>
> Essentially, the miptree is set up as if the texture slices formed
> one tall 2D texture, rather than a 2D array.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen at intel.com>
> ---
> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_tex_layout.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_tex_layout.c b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_tex_layout.c
> index 76044b2..8a0912d 100644
> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_tex_layout.c
> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_tex_layout.c
> @@ -203,6 +203,11 @@ brw_miptree_layout_2d(struct intel_mipmap_tree *mt)
> if (mt->compressed)
> img_height /= mt->align_h;
>
> + if (mt->array_spacing_lod0) {
> + /* Compact arrays with separated miplevels */
> + img_height *= depth;
I always thought arrays are only handled by brw_miptree_layout_texture_array().
When do we end up here to setup an array?
> + }
> +
> /* Because the images are packed better, the final offset
> * might not be the maximal one:
> */
> @@ -238,6 +243,7 @@ brw_miptree_layout_texture_array(struct brw_context *brw,
> struct intel_mipmap_tree *mt)
> {
> int h0, h1;
> + unsigned height = mt->physical_height0;
>
> h0 = ALIGN(mt->physical_height0, mt->align_h);
> h1 = ALIGN(minify(mt->physical_height0, 1), mt->align_h);
> @@ -251,11 +257,22 @@ brw_miptree_layout_texture_array(struct brw_context *brw,
> brw_miptree_layout_2d(mt);
>
> for (unsigned level = mt->first_level; level <= mt->last_level; level++) {
> + unsigned img_height;
> + img_height = ALIGN(height, mt->align_h);
> + if (mt->compressed)
> + img_height /= mt->align_h;
This is confusing me also. You are introducing new layout for layered stencil
only. Do we really allow compression of stencil buffers?
> +
> for (int q = 0; q < mt->physical_depth0; q++) {
> - intel_miptree_set_image_offset(mt, level, q, 0, q * physical_qpitch);
> + if (mt->array_spacing_lod0) {
> + intel_miptree_set_image_offset(mt, level, q, 0, q * img_height);
> + } else {
> + intel_miptree_set_image_offset(mt, level, q, 0, q * physical_qpitch);
> + }
> }
> + height = minify(height, 1);
> }
> - mt->total_height = physical_qpitch * mt->physical_depth0;
> + if (!mt->array_spacing_lod0)
> + mt->total_height = physical_qpitch * mt->physical_depth0;
>
> align_cube(mt);
> }
> --
> 2.0.0.rc4
>
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-dev mailing list
> mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev