[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 04/12] anv: Add func anv_image_has_hiz()

[Nanley Chery]

On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 11:42:24AM -0700, Chad Versace wrote:
> On Thu 01 Sep 2016, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Nanley Chery <nanleychery at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >     From: Chad Versace <chad.versace at intel.com>
> > 
> >     Nanley Chery (amend):
> >      - Remove wip! tag
> > 
> >     Signed-off-by: Nanley Chery <nanley.g.chery at intel.com>
> >     ---
> >      src/intel/vulkan/anv_private.h | 10 ++++++++++
> >      1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > 
> 
> 
> >     +static inline bool
> >     +anv_image_has_hiz(const struct anv_image *image)
> >     +{
> >     +   /* We must check the usage because anv_image::hiz_surface belongs to
> >     +    * a union.
> >     +    */
> >     +   return (image->usage & VK_IMAGE_USAGE_DEPTH_STENCIL_ATTACHMENT_BIT) &&
> > 
> > 
> > Would checking (image->aspects & VK_IMAGE_ASPECT_DEPTH_BIT) be more
> > appropriate?
> 
> I agree. VK_IMAGE_ASPECT_DEPTH_BIT makes more sense.
> 
> Also, that's what the documentation for anv_image says, quoted below:
>    
>    struct anv_image {
>       ...
> 
>       /**
>        * Image subsurfaces
>        *
>        * For each foo, anv_image::foo_surface is valid if and only if
>        * anv_image::aspects has a foo aspect.
>        *
>        * ...
>        */
>       union {
>          struct anv_surface color_surface;
>    
>          struct {
>             struct anv_surface depth_surface;
>             struct anv_surface stencil_surface;                                            
>          };
>       };
>    };
>    

Sure. Thanks for the documentation quote.

A HiZ surface is created for a depth image if both usage and aspect conditions
are satisfied. Would it be better for me to add the aspect check instead of
replacing the usage check with it?