Rob Clark <[email protected]> writes: > What about simply not using GL_QUADS for the normal GL paths? Is > using quads, vs tri's and a few extra vertices really going to be a > win on some other hw? If not, avoiding quads would be a big help for > freedreno too..
Without quads, you end up replicating a lot of vertices, which means a lot more data motion from CPU to GPU. >> The big performance win, though, is fixing copyarea to give the GL >> information about the area that might be damaged by the operation, >> using the scissor. Given that it's negative lines of code and not >> significant on i965, I think this is a pretty good idea. I do wonder >> if we don't want to just always leave scissoring on, like I did to >> logic op. > > I'd implemented a similar thing in XA once upon a time... pretty much > must-have for tilers.. Do you actually want a closer bounding box on the operation? Given that we're likely to have generated a very tight bounds when computing damage, I wonder if rejiggering the API to somehow remember that for the rendering code could be done? -- -keith
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
