[Mesa-stable] [PATCH] mesa: allow GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE type for SNORM reads

[Tapani Pälli]

On 08/30/2018 01:04 AM, Andres Gomez wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-08-29 at 08:22 -0700, Dylan Baker wrote:
>> Quoting Tapani Pälli (2018-08-27 04:46:37)
>>> OpenGL ES spec states:
>>>     "For normalized fixed-point rendering surfaces, the combination format
>>>      RGBA and type UNSIGNED_BYTE is accepted."
>>>
>>> This fixes following failing VK-GL-CTS tests:
>>>
>>>     KHR-GLES3.packed_pixels.pbo_rectangle.rgba8_snorm
>>>     KHR-GLES3.packed_pixels.rectangle.rgba8_snorm
>>>     KHR-GLES3.packed_pixels.varied_rectangle.rgba8_snorm
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tapani Pälli <tapani.palli at intel.com>
>>> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107658
>>> Cc: mesa-stable at lists.freedesktop.org
>>> ---
>>>
>>> This is a partial fix to the bug. I believe there are 2 separate
>>> issues within reported bug and this fixes the first one.
>>>
>>>   src/mesa/main/readpix.c | 9 +++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/mesa/main/readpix.c b/src/mesa/main/readpix.c
>>> index 2cbb578a37f..556c860d393 100644
>>> --- a/src/mesa/main/readpix.c
>>> +++ b/src/mesa/main/readpix.c
>>> @@ -958,6 +958,15 @@ read_pixels_es3_error_check(struct gl_context *ctx, GLenum format, GLenum type,
>>>                  return GL_NO_ERROR;
>>>            }
>>>         }
>>> +      if (type == GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE) {
>>> +         switch (internalFormat) {
>>> +         case GL_R8_SNORM:
>>> +         case GL_RG8_SNORM:
>>> +         case GL_RGBA8_SNORM:
>>> +            if (_mesa_has_EXT_render_snorm(ctx))
>>> +               return GL_NO_ERROR;
>>> +         }
>>> +      }
>>>         break;
>>>      case GL_BGRA:
>>>         /* GL_EXT_read_format_bgra */
>>> -- 
>>> 2.14.4
>>>
>>
>> Hi Tapani,
>>
>> This doesn't apply cleanly to 18.1 because "mesa: enable EXT_render_snorm
>> extension" isn't present on the branch. Does it still make sense to pull this
>> into 18.1?
> 
> Likewise for 18.2.
> 
> The offending commit that caused the regression didn't make it for any
> of the current stable queues so I think it is safe just to ignore this
> patch. Can you confirm?
> 

Yes, please ignore. I thought it made to some branch but it seems not :)

// Tapani