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

[Roland Scheidegger]

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. Wondering if there's a good reason why it both
stores the context and still needs one passed upon destruction. In any
case, the former tex_surface_destroy() didn't have a (then screen)
parameter.

> 
> Otherwise, it looks like a nice cleanup in addition to the new
> functionality.

Thanks for the review,

Roland