On Wed 11 May 2016, Kristian Høgsberg wrote: > From: Kristian Høgsberg Kristensen <kristian.h.kristen...@intel.com> > > --- > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.c | 3 ++ > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.h | 5 +++ > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_tex_image.c | 49 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_tex_obj.h | 2 ++ > 4 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Everything in this patch looks good to me, except... > diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_tex_obj.h > b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_tex_obj.h > index 750e4c3..ad78570 100644 > --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_tex_obj.h > +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_tex_obj.h > @@ -58,6 +58,8 @@ struct intel_texture_object > * since the mt is shared across views with differing formats. > */ > mesa_format _Format; > + > + struct __DRIimageRec *dri_image; > }; You don't use this field until patch 9, so it should probably be rebased into that patch. But... it seems messy that intel_texture_object links to a DRI object. If any object in i965 would have a need to do that, it would be intel_renderbuffer; but intel_renderbuffer doesn't. Since intel_renderbuffer doesn't link to a DRI object, it's weird that intel_texture_object does. Based on how it's used in patch 9, I think it suffices to add an intel_image_format to intel_texture_object instead of an DRIImage. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
