[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 02/17] ac/surface: don't set the display flag for obviously unsupported cases

[Marek Olšák]

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:09 AM, Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote:

> On 2018-04-04 07:35 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net>
> wrote:
> >> On 2018-04-04 02:57 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018, 6:18 AM Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net
> >>> <mailto:michel at daenzer.net>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>     On 2018-04-04 03:59 AM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> >>>     > From: Marek Olšák <marek.olsak at amd.com <mailto:
> marek.olsak at amd.com
> >>>>
> >>>     >
> >>>     > This enables the tile swizzle for some cases of the displayable
> >>>     micro mode,
> >>>     > and it also fixes an addrlib assertion failure on Vega.
> >>>     > ---
> >>>     >  src/amd/common/ac_surface.c | 18 ++++++++++++++----
> >>>     >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>     >
> >>>     > diff --git a/src/amd/common/ac_surface.c
> >> b/src/amd/common/ac_surface.c
> >>>     > index b294cd85259..2b20a553d51 100644
> >>>     > --- a/src/amd/common/ac_surface.c
> >>>     > +++ b/src/amd/common/ac_surface.c
> >>>     > @@ -408,20 +408,29 @@ static unsigned
> >>>     cik_get_macro_tile_index(struct radeon_surf *surf)
> >>>     >       tileb = 8 * 8 * surf->bpe;
> >>>     >       tileb = MIN2(surf->u.legacy.tile_split, tileb);
> >>>     >
> >>>     >       for (index = 0; tileb > 64; index++)
> >>>     >               tileb >>= 1;
> >>>     >
> >>>     >       assert(index < 16);
> >>>     >       return index;
> >>>     >  }
> >>>     >
> >>>     > +static bool get_display_flag(const struct ac_surf_config
> *config,
> >>>     > +                          const struct radeon_surf *surf)
> >>>     > +{
> >>>     > +     return surf->flags & RADEON_SURF_SCANOUT &&
> >>>     > +            !(surf->flags & RADEON_SURF_FMASK) &&
> >>>     > +            config->info.samples <= 1 &&
> >>>     > +            surf->bpe >= 4 && surf->bpe <= 8;
> >>>
> >>>     surf->bpe is the number of bytes used to store each pixel, right?
> If
> >> so,
> >>>     this cannot exclude surf->bpe < 4, since 16 bpp and 8 bpp formats
> >> can be
> >>>     displayed.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sure, but what are the chances they will be displayed with the current
> >>> stack? GLX doesn't have 16bpp visuals for on-screen rendering.
> >>
> >> Maybe not when the X server runs at depth 24, but it can also run at
> >> depths 8, 15 & 16, in which case displayable surfaces with bpe == 1 or 2
> >> are needed even before GLX even comes into the picture.
> >>
> >
> > OK. Let me ask differently. Do we wanna support displayable 8, 15, and 16
> > bpp?
>
> We do support it, it's not really a question of whether we want to
> anymore. :)
>
> > Can we just say that we don't support those?
>
> I'm afraid we can't.
>
>
> Which kind of surfaces are you trying to exclude like this? Maybe they
> can be excluded in a different way.
>

Can we drop support for those formats? i.e. if somebody uses them, the
person will get garbage.

How likely is it that somebody will use bpp <= 16 for display nowadays?

Marek
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20180405/06467d51/attachment-0001.html>