On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 02:05:00 PM Eric Anholt wrote:
> > +static void
> > +intel_image_set_level_info(__DRIimage *image, struct intel_mipmap_tree
> > *mt, + int level, int slice,
> > + uint32_t mask_x, uint32_t mask_y)
> > +{
> > + image->width = mt->level[level].width;
> > + image->height = mt->level[level].height;
> > + image->level_x = mt->level[level].level_x;
> > + image->level_y = mt->level[level].level_y;
> > + image->slice_x_offset = mt->level[level].slice[slice].x_offset;
> > + image->slice_y_offset = mt->level[level].slice[slice].y_offset;
> > +
> > + image->offset = intel_region_get_aligned_offset(mt->region,
> > + image->slice_x_offset
> > & ~mask_x, +
> > image->slice_y_offset & ~mask_y, +
> > false);
> > +}
>
> I think you end up double-counting the slice_x/y_offset offset here --
> you have a tile-aligned byte offset from the base of the region (which I
> don't think you want at all), and then you reference from
> slice_x/y_offset from that offset when texturing.
>
Aren't you supposed to reference the x/y offsets (used in SURFACE_STATE[5] in
gen6 and gen7) in addition to the surface base address in tiled surfaces when
resolving to higher miplevels? Or I am probably missing something?
I agree though that the level /slice differentation definitely needs to be
dropped as you mentioned earlier. I got an update that only accounts for the
x/y offsets to the image. It works correctly as well and I'll post it soon.
Abdiel
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
