On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 02:32:19 PM Jason Ekstrand wrote: > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88792 > --- > > Yes, computing it from the surface state and bo->offset64 is a little > strange when we could just be using mt->offset. However, that's the way > it's done on all the other gens so I decided to be consistent.
Yeah...I've never understood why that was done. It seems silly to me. Plus, with the uint64_t casts, it's even uglier. How about just supplying mt->offset? Either way, Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke <[email protected]> and thanks for fixing this! > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen8_surface_state.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen8_surface_state.c > b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen8_surface_state.c > index 45c35db..16b5a7e 100644 > --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen8_surface_state.c > +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/gen8_surface_state.c > @@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ gen8_update_renderbuffer_surface(struct brw_context *brw, > drm_intel_bo_emit_reloc(brw->batch.bo, > brw->wm.base.surf_offset[surf_index] + 8 * 4, > mt->bo, > - 0, > + *((uint64_t *) &surf[8]) - mt->bo->offset64, ^^^^^^^ Tabs?! > I915_GEM_DOMAIN_RENDER, > I915_GEM_DOMAIN_RENDER); > }
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
