summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/src/intel
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorPohjolainen, Topi <[email protected]>2017-05-03 12:22:50 +0300
committerEmil Velikov <[email protected]>2017-05-18 17:57:52 +0100
commit6123a076d099b87db73f5131ad480a87964c31b9 (patch)
treed71d39c03a83bbb3f530b9ef7b0d7d1b78f1c582 /src/intel
parent691d42700b308abf0e05eab16929dac73aff2662 (diff)
intel/isl/gen7: Use stencil vertical alignment of 8 instead of 4
The reasoning Chad gave in the comment for choosing a valign of 4 is entirely bunk. The fact that you have to multiply pitch by 2 is completely unrelated to the halign/valign parameters used for texture layout. (Not completely unrelated. W-tiling is just Y-tiling with a bit of extra swizzling which turns 8x8 W-tiled chunks into 16x4 y-tiled chunks so it makes everything easier if miplevels are always aligned to 8x8.) The fact that RENDER_SURFACE_STATE::SurfaceVerticalAlignmet doesn't have a VALIGN_8 option doesn't matter since this is gen7 and you can't do stencil texturing anyway. v2 (Jason Ekstrand): - Delete most of Chad's comment and add a more descriptive commit message. Signed-off-by: Topi Pohjolainen <[email protected]> Cc: "17.0 17.1" <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Jason Ekstrand <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Chad Versace <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 236f17a9f73935db6cddafd91e53a5fae34aae6e)
Diffstat (limited to 'src/intel')
-rw-r--r--src/intel/isl/isl_gen7.c28
1 files changed, 5 insertions, 23 deletions
diff --git a/src/intel/isl/isl_gen7.c b/src/intel/isl/isl_gen7.c
index 18687b535de..8e6b441b9b6 100644
--- a/src/intel/isl/isl_gen7.c
+++ b/src/intel/isl/isl_gen7.c
@@ -352,30 +352,12 @@ gen7_choose_valign_el(const struct isl_device *dev,
if (isl_surf_usage_is_stencil(info->usage)) {
/* The Ivybridge PRM states that the stencil buffer's vertical alignment
* is 8 [Ivybridge PRM, Volume 1, Part 1, Section 6.18.4.4 Alignment
- * Unit Size]. However, valign=8 is outside the set of valid values of
- * RENDER_SURFACE_STATE.SurfaceVerticalAlignment, which is VALIGN_2
- * (0x0) and VALIGN_4 (0x1).
- *
- * The PRM is generally confused about the width, height, and alignment
- * of the stencil buffer; and this confusion appears elsewhere. For
- * example, the following PRM text effectively converts the stencil
- * buffer's 8-pixel alignment to a 4-pixel alignment [Ivybridge PRM,
- * Volume 1, Part 1, Section
- * 6.18.4.2 Base Address and LOD Calculation]:
- *
- * For separate stencil buffer, the width must be mutiplied by 2 and
- * height divided by 2 as follows:
- *
- * w_L = 2*i*ceil(W_L/i)
- * h_L = 1/2*j*ceil(H_L/j)
- *
- * The root of the confusion is that, in W tiling, each pair of rows is
- * interleaved into one.
- *
- * FINISHME(chadv): Decide to set valign=4 or valign=8 after isl's API
- * is more polished.
+ * Unit Size]. valign=8 is outside the set of valid values of
+ * RENDER_SURFACE_STATE.SurfaceVerticalAlignment, but that's ok because
+ * a stencil buffer will never be used directly for texturing or
+ * rendering on gen7.
*/
- require_valign4 = true;
+ return 8;
}
assert(!require_valign2 || !require_valign4);