[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 6/6] i965: Enable INTEL_performance_query for Gen5+.

[Ian Romanick]

I'm slightly leaning towards using a single flag for both extensions.
As far as I can tell, the only difference between the extensions is
device-independent API bits.  If you support one, you can surely support
the other.

Ken: What's your opinion?

That would mean that this patch would be replaced by one that removes
gl_extensions::INTEL_performance_query and globally does
's/INTEL_performance_query/AMD_performance_monitor/g'.  The commit
message would be something like, "mesa: Enable INTEL_performance_query
whenever AMD_performance_monitor is enabled."

Also... you need another patch that adds INTEL_performance_query to
docs/relnotes/10.2.html. :)

On 03/17/2014 01:43 AM, Petri Latvala wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Petri Latvala <petri.latvala at intel.com>
> ---
>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_extensions.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_extensions.c b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_extensions.c
> index 2a68758..5dbd1e6 100644
> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_extensions.c
> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_extensions.c
> @@ -308,8 +308,10 @@ intelInitExtensions(struct gl_context *ctx)
>        ctx->Extensions.ARB_stencil_texturing = true;
>     }
>  
> -   if (brw->gen == 5 || can_write_oacontrol(brw))
> +   if (brw->gen == 5 || can_write_oacontrol(brw)) {
>        ctx->Extensions.AMD_performance_monitor = true;
> +      ctx->Extensions.INTEL_performance_query = true;
> +   }
>  
>     if (ctx->API == API_OPENGL_CORE)
>        ctx->Extensions.ARB_base_instance = true;
>