On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 07:08 -0700, Roland Scheidegger wrote: > On 10.06.2010 11:30, Keith Whitwell wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 13:26 -0700, Roland Scheidegger wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I've created a new branch gallium-array-textures which has some more > >> interface changes, this time to support array textures basically. > >> Nothing has been adapted to these changes yet (I'll do that it should be > >> mostly trivial as long as array textures aren't actually supported by > >> the driver or even mesa state tracker), but now would be a good time if > >> you have some comments for the proposed interface changes. > >> > >> Roland > > > > Roland, > > > > This looks great! > > > > Couple of comments -- you're now using the term "layer" in various > > places, but there is no strong definition of what that means - except in > > the patch comment, which isn't useful once the patch is committed. Can > > you define this term somewhere in the documentation? > Ok will do. > > > > > Also, there are a couple of things that look like typos in the interface > > change diff, but I'm sure you'll find those the first time you try to > > compile this. eg: > > > > void (*resource_copy_region)(struct pipe_context *pipe, > > struct pipe_resource *dst, > > - struct pipe_subresource subdst, > > + unsigned level, > > unsigned dstx, unsigned dsty, unsigned > > dstz, > > struct pipe_resource *src, > > - struct pipe_subresource subsrc, > > - unsigned srcx, unsigned srcy, unsigned > > srcz, > > - unsigned width, unsigned height); > > + unsigned level, > > + const struct pipe_box *); > > > > It seems like you end up with two parameters named "level" ?? > Yes, I had already fixed this locally. > create_surface also had a bug (still got passed pipe_screen instead of > pipe_context since it moved to context), as well as I need to store the > context itself in pipe_surface (much like pipe_sampler_view does). > That actually was a bit non-trivial since some state trackers don't > really have a context handy when they called the former > get_tex_surface() (glx, wgl and so on statetrackers not the rendering > ones). Some of them did, though, already have their own context (for > resource_copy_region, for instance) so I'm about to do this in a similar > fashion. > Actually, I was wondering if surface_destroy() should also get passed in > a context - seems strange since it already stores the context, but this > is exactly what sampler_view_destroy() does, which I'd like to see as a > very analogous function.
Yes, it should take a context, mainly for consistency. It helps when wrapping/unwrapping these functions to have a consistent interface. Keith _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
