On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 03:31:55PM -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Topi Pohjolainen <topi.pohjolai...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Topi Pohjolainen <topi.pohjolai...@intel.com> > > --- > > src/intel/isl/isl_gen7.c | 6 +++++- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/src/intel/isl/isl_gen7.c b/src/intel/isl/isl_gen7.c > > index 18687b5..cf5b377 100644 > > --- a/src/intel/isl/isl_gen7.c > > +++ b/src/intel/isl/isl_gen7.c > > @@ -375,7 +375,11 @@ gen7_choose_valign_el(const struct isl_device *dev, > > * FINISHME(chadv): Decide to set valign=4 or valign=8 after isl's > > API > > * is more polished. > > */ > > - require_valign4 = true; > > + > > + /* Using valign 4 upsets all depthstencil-render-miplevels on IVB > > and > > + * HSW. Use alignment 8 instead. > > + */ > > + return 8; > > > > I'm confused. This seems to contradict the documentation which says that > valign for depth is hard-coded to 4 in the hardware.
Just as I am. It took me a while to actually try increasing the alignment - it was just after I compared what the current logic in i965 does. The thing here is not the alignment itself but the amount of space that gets allocated. I'll get back with more details shortly. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
