Oh, never mind - I see there's another hunk that my mailer had folded away for some reason. I'm happy that it's correct now :) On Jul 13, 2015 23:33, "Neil Roberts" <n...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Chris Forbes <chr...@ijw.co.nz> writes: > > > Nitpicks aside, I don't think this is a great idea now that you've got > > the SKL PI working. > > Can you explain why you don't think this is a good idea? Is it because > it is an optimisation for something that is not known to be a big use > case so carrying around the extra code just adds unnecessary maintenance > burden? I could agree with that so I'm happy to abandon the patch for > now if that's the general consensus. > > > I also think it's broken -- you need to arrange to have the centroid > > barycentric coords delivered to the FS thread, which won't be > > happening if this is the *only* use of them. Masked in the tests, > > because they compare with a centroid-qualified input. [I'm assuming > > you don't always get these delivered to the FS in SKL, but no docs > > access...] > > The changes to brw_compute_barycentric_interp_modes in the patch ensure > that the centroid barycentric coords are delivered whenever > interpolateAtCentroid is used in a shader. I don't think this is a > problem. At least it seems to work in a simple test without using a > separate varying with the centroid qualifier. > > Regards, > - Neil >
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev