[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 01/13] i965/blorp: Refactor to get rid of the get_wm_prog virtual function

[Jason Ekstrand]

On Apr 23, 2016 3:46 AM, "Pohjolainen, Topi" <topi.pohjolainen at intel.com>
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 04:19:08PM -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > Instead of having a virtual member function for getting the WM/PS
kernel,
> > we simply add fields for prog_data and the kernel to brw_blorp_parms and
> > always make sure those get set as part of the different constructors.
> > ---
> >  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_blorp.cpp       | 12 ++-----
> >  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_blorp.h         | 19 +++++-----
> >  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_blorp_blit.cpp  | 12 ++-----
> >  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_blorp_clear.cpp | 50
++++++++++++---------------
> >  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen6_blorp.cpp      | 25 ++++++--------
> >  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen7_blorp.cpp      | 28 +++++++--------
> >  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen8_blorp.cpp      | 18 ++++------
> >  7 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 96 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_blorp.cpp
b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_blorp.cpp
> > index ce09b09..9dbbd83 100644
> > --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_blorp.cpp
> > +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_blorp.cpp
> > @@ -165,10 +165,11 @@ brw_blorp_params::brw_blorp_params(unsigned
num_varyings,
> >       depth_format(0),
> >       hiz_op(GEN6_HIZ_OP_NONE),
> >       fast_clear_op(0),
> > -     use_wm_prog(false),
> >       num_varyings(num_varyings),
> >       num_draw_buffers(num_draw_buffers),
> > -     num_layers(num_layers)
> > +     num_layers(num_layers),
> > +     wm_prog_kernel(BRW_BLORP_NO_WM_PROG),
> > +     wm_prog_data(NULL)
> >  {
> >     color_write_disable[0] = false;
> >     color_write_disable[1] = false;
> > @@ -354,10 +355,3 @@ brw_hiz_op_params::brw_hiz_op_params(struct
intel_mipmap_tree *mt,
> >     default:                    unreachable("not reached");
> >     }
> >  }
> > -
> > -uint32_t
> > -brw_hiz_op_params::get_wm_prog(struct brw_context *brw,
> > -                               brw_blorp_prog_data **prog_data) const
> > -{
> > -   return 0;
> > -}
> > diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_blorp.h
b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_blorp.h
> > index 79dc59a..4981afd 100644
> > --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_blorp.h
> > +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_blorp.h
> > @@ -229,6 +229,7 @@ struct brw_blorp_prog_data
> >     bool persample_msaa_dispatch;
> >  };
> >
> > +#define BRW_BLORP_NO_WM_PROG 1
>
> So in other words any offset other than one is regarded as valid? I was
> wondering if could drop this and use the existence of wm_prog_data to tell
> if there is kernel available or not. At least in current form valid kernel
> always has prog_data and vice versa.

I thought about that and would be happy to make the change If you wanted.
I just couldn't decide which I thought was cleaner.

> In general I like the patch.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20160423/c59e3d1e/attachment-0001.html>