On 23 July 2012 09:15, Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> wrote:
> Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 17:36:40 -0700, Chad Versace <
> chad.vers...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> After commit "intel: Convert to using private depth/stencil buffers", we
> >> request from DRI2GetBuffersWithFormat only the front left and back left
> >> buffers. We no longer request depth and stencil buffers.
> >>
> >> Assert that in intelAllocateBuffer and remove the related dead code.
> >
> >> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/intel/intel_screen.c
> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/intel/intel_screen.c
> >> index 81953ce..2d46d67 100644
> >> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/intel/intel_screen.c
> >> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/intel/intel_screen.c
> >> @@ -972,54 +972,6 @@ struct intel_buffer {
> >> struct intel_region *region;
> >
> >> - ok = intel_get_dri_buffer_tiling(intelScreen, attachment, &tiling);
> >
> >> + /* The front and back buffers are color buffers, which are X tiled.
> */
> >> intelBuffer->region = intel_region_alloc(intelScreen,
> >> - tiling,
> >> - region_cpp,
> >> - region_width,
> >> - region_height,
> >> + I915_TILING_X,
> >> + format / 8,
> >> + width,
> >> + height,
> >> true);
> >
> > I see no reason to bake in the assumption that the buffers are X-tiled.
> > Presumably Y-tiling will still be advantageous in many circumstances,
> > basically any surface which is not a candidate for pageflipping?
>
> If there was some reason, it probably won't be based on just the
> attachment type, so this seems like a good change.
>
Agreed. Besides, the old code had a baked-in assumption of X-tiling for
front buffers too, so there is no change. This patch is:
Reviewed-by: Paul Berry <stereotype...@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
