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

[Pohjolainen, Topi]

On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 05:40:25PM +0300, Pohjolainen, Topi wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 07:32:33AM -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> >    On Apr 23, 2016 3:46 AM, "Pohjolainen, Topi"
> >    <[1]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.
> 
> If you don't mind. It is in the end matter of taste but somehow I find it
> cleaner. You can slab there:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Topi Pohjolainen <topi.pohjolainen at intel.com>
> 
> I'll go through the rest next.

Just a few comments that you can take or leave but the series:

Reviewed-by: Topi Pohjolainen <topi.pohjolainen at intel.com>