On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 04:48:06PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > > On 7 June 2017 at 16:33, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 03:24:58PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: > >> On 7 June 2017 at 13:53, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Anyways, I'll have to revisit the the offsets[] thing because people > >> > didn't like my original linear offset idea, and it doesn't match what > >> > userspace already does. > >> > >> I'm still really confused about this. Your patches implement a linear > >> byte offset. The last time it came up on IRC, all four of myself, Ben, > >> Jason, and you, agreed that linear byte offsets were the only thing > >> which made sense. The Mesa patchset that's been sent out a couple of > >> times and is now in Jason's hands use linear offsets. If everything > >> (kernel, Mesa) uses linear offsets, and everyone (the four of us in > >> the discussion) wants linear offsets - why revisit? > > > > Mesa doesn't use linear offsets. Or at least it didn't when I last > > looked. > > It does, and I have correct CCS output (tested by displaying frames > either as Y_CCS, or as plain Y; correct display with the former and > visibly showing an incomplete primary surface for the latter) with the > last set of Mesa patches I submitted, using Weston. It's been that way > for a couple of months (?) now, since the stride handling was fixed > too. I still see stuff like intel_setup_image_from_mipmap_tree() -> intel_miptree_get_tile_offsets() -> intel_miptree_get_aligned_offset() which doesn't return a linear offset. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
