[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 1/7] gallium: add CONSTBUF type to tgsi_file_type

Ilia Mirkin imirkin at alum.mit.edu
Wed Aug 23 13:49:42 UTC 2017

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22.08.2017 16:56, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Roland Scheidegger <sroland at vmware.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I am probably missing something here, but why do you need a new register
>>> file? Since you couldn't use LOAD with TGSI_FILE_CONSTANT before, can't
>>> you just allow LOAD with TGSI_FILE_CONSTANT and achieve the same thing?
>>> Or do you need to know how it's going to be accessed in advance?
>> With bindless, LOAD can take a CONST I believe [which contains the
>> value of the bindless id]. I think it's nice to keep those concepts
>> separate... having CONST sometimes mean the value and other times mean
>> the address is a bit weird. This way CONSTBUF[0] is the address of the
>> 0th constbuf.
> I'm still not quite convinced. The levels of indirection should clarify the
> meaning, shouldn't they?
> You get
>   LOAD dst, CONST[0][0], IMM[0]
> when loading from offset IMM[0] of a bindless buffer whose handle is at the
> beginning of the buffer CONST[0].
> You get
>   LOAD dst, CONST[0], IMM[0]
> when loading from offset IMM[0] of non-bindless buffer 0.
> Is there ever really a situation where the two could be confused?

I always considered CONST[0] == CONST[0][0]. Technically they're not,
since once has the second dimension in the TGSI encoding while the
other doesn't. But practically,



MOV TEMP[0], CONST[0][0]

are in every way identical. Currently st/mesa will just use CONST[0]
everywhere, never adding the 2nd dimension. As such, I don't think we
should start having behavioural differences for those on some

More information about the mesa-dev mailing list