On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:32:46AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > 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. That's because I still think the end of the journey is a fully initialized golden context image + copy of that context on context creation. -- Damien _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
