Ian Romanick wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 01:18:43AM +0000, Michael wrote: > > > Here's a first stab at the Radeon 3rd texture unit for testing, comments, > > flames etc. > > Congrats! Nice to see come cool stuff done. :) > > > --- radeon_context.c 6 Nov 2001 16:47:17 -0000 1.6.6.4 > > +++ radeon_context.c 13 Feb 2002 00:43:06 -0000 > > @@ -323,7 +323,8 @@ radeonCreateContext( Display *dpy, const > > ctx->Const.MaxTextureLevels = 9; /* 256x256 */ > > } > > > > - ctx->Const.MaxTextureUnits = 2; > > + ctx->Const.MaxTextureLevels = 12; /* 2048x2048 */ > > + ctx->Const.MaxTextureUnits = 3; > > ctx->Const.MaxTextureMaxAnisotropy = 16.0; > > Shouldn't this use the defines from radeon_drm.h (or radeon_sarea.h)?
I don't really mind. > > --- radeon_vb.c 5 Dec 2001 11:52:33 -0000 1.5.6.6 > > +++ radeon_vb.c 13 Feb 2002 00:43:09 -0000 > > @@ -61,8 +61,9 @@ USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. > > #define RADEON_SPEC_BIT 0x08 > > #define RADEON_TEX0_BIT 0x10 > > #define RADEON_TEX1_BIT 0x20 > > -#define RADEON_PTEX_BIT 0x40 > > -#define RADEON_MAX_SETUP 0x80 > > +#define RADEON_TEX2_BIT 0x40 > > +#define RADEON_PTEX_BIT 0x80 > > +#define RADEON_MAX_SETUP 0xff > > I don't think that it will, but does changing the value of RADEON_PTEX_BIT > present a compatability problem? I don't think this value of > RADEON_MAX_SETUP is correct. It should be 0x100, not 0xff. No compatibility issue, you're right about 0x100. > Other than that, the patch looks pretty good to me. Of course, converting > some of the code to loops would be nice, I don't think it's a huge issue. > It would only really be to help out with the R200+ support. Can the R200 > even use 6 textures w/o using shader programs (vertex or fragment)? Don't know - haven't really looked at the spec. But yes, loops make sense above a small number of texunits. Keith _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
