On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 03:04:17PM +0100, Neil Roberts wrote:
> Ben Widawsky writes:
>
> > Either of you opposed to doing it as a follow-on patch? (This failure
> > you speak of was the primary goal for removing it). Initially, I tried
> > to remove it, but we do still seem to use this logic pre-
Ben Widawsky writes:
> Either of you opposed to doing it as a follow-on patch? (This failure
> you speak of was the primary goal for removing it). Initially, I tried
> to remove it, but we do still seem to use this logic pre-HSW, and so
> things got messier than I initially anticipated.
Doing a
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 09:09:41AM -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>> On Aug 10, 2015 4:14 AM, "Neil Roberts" wrote:
>> >
>> > If we go with this patch perhaps it would be good to remove
>> > supports_simd16_3src entirely from brw_device_info an
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 09:09:41AM -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2015 4:14 AM, "Neil Roberts" wrote:
> >
> > If we go with this patch perhaps it would be good to remove
> > supports_simd16_3src entirely from brw_device_info and any code that is
> > referring to it in order to avoid car
On Aug 10, 2015 4:14 AM, "Neil Roberts" wrote:
>
> If we go with this patch perhaps it would be good to remove
> supports_simd16_3src entirely from brw_device_info and any code that is
> referring to it in order to avoid carrying around useless code.
> Currently it seems like it would be quite eas
If we go with this patch perhaps it would be good to remove
supports_simd16_3src entirely from brw_device_info and any code that is
referring to it in order to avoid carrying around useless code.
Currently it seems like it would be quite easy to add a new
brw_device_info and forget to add supports_
On Sun, Aug 09, 2015 at 04:29:33PM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On Friday, August 07, 2015 01:58:37 PM Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > We do not want bug reports from this early stepping of SKL. Few if any were
> > ever
> > shipped outside of Intel to early enabling partners, and none will be sold.
> >
On Friday, August 07, 2015 01:58:37 PM Ben Widawsky wrote:
> We do not want bug reports from this early stepping of SKL. Few if any were
> ever
> shipped outside of Intel to early enabling partners, and none will be sold.
>
> There is a functional change here. If you're using new mesa on an old
>
We do not want bug reports from this early stepping of SKL. Few if any were ever
shipped outside of Intel to early enabling partners, and none will be sold.
There is a functional change here. If you're using new mesa on an old
kernel/libdrm, the revid will be -1, and we'll use new SKL values inste
