On 01/11/2012 12:06 PM, Paul Berry wrote:
Commit 9bdc44a52804a64219a0ca1a061b18596863e524 (i965: Replace struct with bit shifting for WM pull constant surfaces) accidentally introduced off-by-one errors into the calculation of the surface width, height, and depth. This patch restores the correct computation.The reason this wasn't noticed by Piglit tests is that the size of our constant surfaces is always less than 2^20, therefore the off-by-one error was causing the "depth" field of the surface to be set to all 1's. The hardware interpreted this as an extremely large surface, so overflow checking was effectively disabled. No Piglit regressions on Sandy Bridge. NOTE: This is a candidate for the 7.11 and 8.0 branches. --- src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_wm_surface_state.c | 6 +++--- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_wm_surface_state.c b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_wm_surface_state.c index dedf594..b40f5e1 100644 --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_wm_surface_state.c +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_wm_surface_state.c @@ -698,10 +698,10 @@ brw_create_constant_surface(struct brw_context *brw, surf[1] = bo->offset; /* reloc */ - surf[2] = (((w& 0x7f) - 1)<< BRW_SURFACE_WIDTH_SHIFT | - (((w>> 7)& 0x1fff) - 1)<< BRW_SURFACE_HEIGHT_SHIFT); + surf[2] = ((w& 0x7f)<< BRW_SURFACE_WIDTH_SHIFT | + ((w>> 7)& 0x1fff)<< BRW_SURFACE_HEIGHT_SHIFT); - surf[3] = ((((w>> 20)& 0x7f) - 1)<< BRW_SURFACE_DEPTH_SHIFT | + surf[3] = (((w>> 20)& 0x7f)<< BRW_SURFACE_DEPTH_SHIFT | (width * 16 - 1)<< BRW_SURFACE_PITCH_SHIFT); surf[4] = 0;
Yeah, from reading the simulator, these -1's are clearly wrong. Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
