[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 01/23] i965: Let caller of intel_miptree_create_layout() decide msaa layout

[Pohjolainen, Topi]

On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 12:05:52PM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 06:51:21PM +0200, Topi Pohjolainen wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Topi Pohjolainen <topi.pohjolainen at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.c | 15 +++++++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.c b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.c
> > index 108dd87..0edd59f 100644
> > --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.c
> > +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.c
> > @@ -64,8 +64,11 @@ intel_miptree_alloc_mcs(struct brw_context *brw,
> >   */
> >  static enum intel_msaa_layout
> >  compute_msaa_layout(struct brw_context *brw, mesa_format format,
> > -                    bool disable_aux_buffers)
> > +                    unsigned num_samples, bool disable_aux_buffers)
> >  {
> > +   if (num_samples <= 1)
> > +      return INTEL_MSAA_LAYOUT_NONE;
> > +
> >     /* Prior to Gen7, all MSAA surfaces used IMS layout. */
> >     if (brw->gen < 7)
> >        return INTEL_MSAA_LAYOUT_IMS;
> > @@ -299,6 +302,7 @@ intel_miptree_create_layout(struct brw_context *brw,
> >                              GLuint height0,
> >                              GLuint depth0,
> >                              GLuint num_samples,
> > +                            enum intel_msaa_layout msaa_layout,
> 
> Is there a reason why you decided not to roll this into layout flags? It seems
> to fit into that pretty well IMO.

If I understood you correctly, you would like to pass

enum intel_msaa_layout
{
   INTEL_MSAA_LAYOUT_NONE,
   INTEL_MSAA_LAYOUT_IMS,
   INTEL_MSAA_LAYOUT_UMS,
   INTEL_MSAA_LAYOUT_CMS,
};

along with

enum {
   MIPTREE_LAYOUT_ACCELERATED_UPLOAD       = 1 << 0,
   MIPTREE_LAYOUT_FORCE_ALL_SLICE_AT_LOD   = 1 << 1,
   MIPTREE_LAYOUT_FOR_BO                   = 1 << 2,
   MIPTREE_LAYOUT_DISABLE_AUX              = 1 << 3,
   MIPTREE_LAYOUT_FORCE_HALIGN16           = 1 << 4,

   MIPTREE_LAYOUT_TILING_Y                 = 1 << 5,
   MIPTREE_LAYOUT_TILING_NONE              = 1 << 6,
   MIPTREE_LAYOUT_TILING_ANY               = MIPTREE_LAYOUT_TILING_Y |
                                             MIPTREE_LAYOUT_TILING_NONE,
};

in the same uint32_t. Values are conflicting and therefore one of the
enumerations would need to re-introduce the other with non-conflicting
values. Or did I misunderstand?