Alex Deucher wrote:
Does reverting this part of the patch fix it?
@@ -1055,10 +1055,10 @@ static void r600_texture_size(unsigned nfaces,
unsigned blevel, unsigned nlevels
}
*l0_size = ALIGN((w0 * bpe), pitch_align) * h0 * d0;
*mipmap_size = offset;
- if (!blevel)
- *mipmap_size -= *l0_size;
if (!nlevels)
*mipmap_size = *l0_size;
+ if (!blevel)
+ *mipmap_size -= *l0_size;
}
No, it does make the nunbers bigger, though -
radeon 0000:01:00.0: mipmap bo too small (512 512 4 0 0 1048576 ->
1048576 have 1409024)
Just as a double check this is my diff against current d-r-t for this test.
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_cs.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_cs.c
index d886494..f6580ca 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_cs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_cs.c
@@ -1051,10 +1051,10 @@ static void r600_texture_size(unsigned nfaces,
unsigned blevel, unsigned nlevels
}
*l0_size = ALIGN((w0 * bpe), pitch_align) * h0 * d0;
*mipmap_size = offset;
- if (!nlevels)
- *mipmap_size = *l0_size;
if (!blevel)
*mipmap_size -= *l0_size;
+ if (!nlevels)
+ *mipmap_size = *l0_size;
}
/**
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
