[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 4:47 PM, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
>

Or put differently: How likely is it that somebody will notice it on
supported distros and supported window managers?

Marek
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20180405/5de0956c/attachment-0001.html>