On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:17:04AM +0000, Damien Lespiau wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:12:46AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 03:01:50AM -0800, Imre Deak wrote: > > > On Thu, 2015-01-29 at 10:51 +0000, Damien Lespiau wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:03:19AM -0800, Imre Deak wrote: > > > > > Without emitting the default 3DSTATE_WM_DEPTH_STENCIL state the test > > > > > will fail. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Question: Wasn't the golden context supposed to paper over those? > > > > > > Perhaps, currently the golden context doesn't include this. > > > > Today, you cannot rely on the initial contents of the context even with > > the golden render state. There is no pristine context, every client is > > responsible for configuring the hardware exactly as they intend to use - > > at least as regards the untrusted commands (e.g. 3DSTATE). > > Right. Now the question is, do we want to change that and have the > golden context with sane defaults? You missed the point. The point is that we don't keep initialise every context from scratch. And there still doesn't seem to be any reason to be papering over userspace bugs. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
