[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 1/6] i965: Consolidate certain miptree params to flags

[Matt Turner]

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Ben Widawsky
<benjamin.widawsky at intel.com> wrote:
> I think pretty much everyone agrees that having more than a single bool as a
> function argument is bordering on a bad idea. What sucks about the current
> code is in several instances it's necessary to propagate these boolean
> selections down to lower layers of the code. This requires plumbing (mechanical,
> but still churn) pretty much all of the miptree functions each time.  By
> introducing the flags paramater, it is possible to add miptree constraints very
> easily.
>
> The use of this, as is already the case, is sometimes we have some information
> at the time we create the miptree that needs to be known all the way at the
> lowest levels of the create/allocation, disable_aux_buffers is currently one
> such example. There will be another example coming up in a few patches.
>
> Cc: Chad Versace <chad.versace at linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net>
> ---
>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_fbo.c          |  5 +-
>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.c  | 86 +++++++++++++-------------
>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.h  |  9 ++-
>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_pixel_draw.c   |  2 +-
>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_tex.c          |  8 +--
>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_tex.h          |  2 +-
>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_tex_image.c    | 14 ++---
>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_tex_validate.c |  3 +-
>  8 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_fbo.c b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_fbo.c
> index aebed72..1b3a72f 100644
> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_fbo.c
> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_fbo.c
> @@ -390,7 +390,7 @@ intel_image_target_renderbuffer_storage(struct gl_context *ctx,
>                                           image->height,
>                                           1,
>                                           image->pitch,
> -                                         true /*disable_aux_buffers*/);
> +                                         MIPTREE_LAYOUT_DISABLE_AUX);
>     if (!irb->mt)
>        return;
>
> @@ -1027,10 +1027,9 @@ intel_renderbuffer_move_to_temp(struct brw_context *brw,
>                                   intel_image->base.Base.Level,
>                                   intel_image->base.Base.Level,
>                                   width, height, depth,
> -                                 true,
>                                   irb->mt->num_samples,
>                                   INTEL_MIPTREE_TILING_ANY,
> -                                 false);
> +                                 MIPTREE_LAYOUT_ACCELERATED_UPLOAD);
>
>     if (intel_miptree_wants_hiz_buffer(brw, new_mt)) {
>        intel_miptree_alloc_hiz(brw, new_mt);
> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.c b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.c
> index 24a5c3d..b243f8a 100644
> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.c
> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.c
> @@ -244,10 +244,8 @@ intel_miptree_create_layout(struct brw_context *brw,
>                              GLuint width0,
>                              GLuint height0,
>                              GLuint depth0,
> -                            bool for_bo,
>                              GLuint num_samples,
> -                            bool force_all_slices_at_each_lod,
> -                            bool disable_aux_buffers)
> +                            uint32_t layout_flags)
>  {
>     struct intel_mipmap_tree *mt = calloc(sizeof(*mt), 1);
>     if (!mt)
> @@ -286,7 +284,7 @@ intel_miptree_create_layout(struct brw_context *brw,
>     mt->logical_height0 = height0;
>     mt->logical_depth0 = depth0;
>     mt->fast_clear_state = INTEL_FAST_CLEAR_STATE_NO_MCS;
> -   mt->disable_aux_buffers = disable_aux_buffers;
> +   mt->disable_aux_buffers = !!(layout_flags & MIPTREE_LAYOUT_DISABLE_AUX);

FWIW, I much prefer (x & y) != 0 to !!(x & y).