On Don, 2013-09-19 at 18:37 +0200, Marek Olšák wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Michel Dänzer michel@daenzer.net wrote:
On Don, 2013-09-19 at 14:33 +0200, Marek Olšák wrote:
This fixes VM protection faults.
I have a new piglit test which can iterate over all possible widths, heights, and depths (including NPOT) and tests mipmapping with various texture targets.
After this is committed, I'll make a new release of libdrm and bump the libdrm version requirement in Mesa.
radeon/radeon_surface.c | 14 +++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/radeon/radeon_surface.c b/radeon/radeon_surface.c index 1710e34..d5c45c4 100644 --- a/radeon/radeon_surface.c +++ b/radeon/radeon_surface.c @@ -1412,7 +1412,11 @@ static void si_surf_minify(struct radeon_surface *surf, uint32_t xalign, uint32_t yalign, uint32_t zalign, uint32_t slice_align, unsigned offset) {
- surflevel->npix_x = mip_minify(surf->npix_x, level);
- if (level == 0) {
surflevel->npix_x = surf->npix_x;- } else {
surflevel->npix_x = mip_minify(next_power_of_two(surf->npix_x), level);- } surflevel->npix_y = mip_minify(surf->npix_y, level); surflevel->npix_z = mip_minify(surf->npix_z, level);
Shouldn't this be done (only) for nblk_x instead of npix_x?
First, level[i].npix_x/y/z have misleading names, because they are always aligned to a power of two for non-zero mipmap levels, therefore Mesa shouldn't use them in place of u_minify, because it's not the same thing. In fact, r600g doesn't really use them and even though radeonsi does, they are incorrectly used in place of u_minify. It's on my TODO list.
mip_minify is defined as: level ? MAX2(1, next_power_of_two(x >> level)) : x. u_minify is defined as: level ? MAX2(1, x >> level) : x.
Considering that probably nothing in Mesa uses level[i].npix_x/y/z correctly, it's not so important what the variables contain.
But it seems like it would be possible to make npix_x/y/z contain the values their names suggest, by making mip_minify() do the same thing as u_minify(), and only rounding up to the next power of two for nblk_x/y/z, wouldn't it?