[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 10/12] i965/cs: Get max_cs_threads from brw_compiler devinfo

[Jason Ekstrand]

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Kristian Høgsberg <krh at bitplanet.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 7, 2015 3:36 PM, "Kristian Høgsberg" <krh at bitplanet.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Matt Turner <mattst88 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Kristian Høgsberg Kristensen
>>> > <krh at bitplanet.net> wrote:
>>> >> Signed-off-by: Kristian Høgsberg Kristensen <krh at bitplanet.net>
>>> >> ---
>>> >>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp | 5 +++--
>>> >>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>> >>
>>> >> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp
>>> >> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp
>>> >> index 65c3628..b79b4a4 100644
>>> >> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp
>>> >> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp
>>> >> @@ -5276,6 +5276,7 @@ brw_cs_emit(struct brw_context *brw,
>>> >>     prog_data->local_size[2] = cp->LocalSize[2];
>>> >>     unsigned local_workgroup_size =
>>> >>        cp->LocalSize[0] * cp->LocalSize[1] * cp->LocalSize[2];
>>> >> +   unsigned max_cs_threads =
>>> >> brw->intelScreen->compiler->devinfo->max_cs_threads;
>>> >
>>> > I'm not following how this helps? Seems like you want to just pass in
>>> > devinfo or something?
>>>
>>> We want to pass in just brw_compiler eventually. At that point
>>> brw_context won't be available. Jason will do that next, and I guess
>>> you could argue that this patch belongs in that series.
>>
>> I would tend to agree with Matt. This patch doesn't really do anything on
>> its own and I plan on doing it "for real" soon enough that "other callers"
>> won't have to wait long.  Let's put this off until we can do it "the right
>> way".
>
> I don't feel too strongly about this one and it certainly isn't
> directly related to or required for what this patch series tries to
> do. However, whatever we do in future patch series, this would have to
> be a patch on its own so as to isolate potential side effects from
> moving from brw->max_cs_threads to the devinfo field. We can do it now
> or later.

That seems like a reasonable argument.  I can include it in mine later
or, if you'd prefer,

Reviewed-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason.ekstrand at intel.com>