On Wed 07 Sep 2016, Nanley Chery wrote: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 11:42:24AM -0700, Chad Versace wrote: > > On Thu 01 Sep 2016, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Nanley Chery <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > From: Chad Versace <[email protected]> > > > > > > Nanley Chery (amend): > > > - Remove wip! tag > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nanley Chery <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > src/intel/vulkan/anv_private.h | 10 ++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > +static inline bool > > > +anv_image_has_hiz(const struct anv_image *image) > > > +{ > > > + /* We must check the usage because anv_image::hiz_surface belongs > > > to > > > + * a union. > > > + */ > > > + return (image->usage & > > > VK_IMAGE_USAGE_DEPTH_STENCIL_ATTACHMENT_BIT) && > > > > > > > > > Would checking (image->aspects & VK_IMAGE_ASPECT_DEPTH_BIT) be more > > > appropriate? > > > > I agree. VK_IMAGE_ASPECT_DEPTH_BIT makes more sense. > > > > Also, that's what the documentation for anv_image says, quoted below: > > > > struct anv_image { > > ... > > > > /** > > * Image subsurfaces > > * > > * For each foo, anv_image::foo_surface is valid if and only if > > * anv_image::aspects has a foo aspect. > > * > > * ... > > */ > > union { > > struct anv_surface color_surface; > > > > struct { > > struct anv_surface depth_surface; > > struct anv_surface stencil_surface; > > > > }; > > }; > > }; > > > > Sure. Thanks for the documentation quote. > > A HiZ surface is created for a depth image if both usage and aspect conditions > are satisfied. Would it be better for me to add the aspect check instead of > replacing the usage check with it?
I see. You want to avoid allocating the HiZ surface if it's never rendered as a depth attachment. So yes, your suggestion sounds good to me. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
