From: Stephane M. <mar...@ic...> - 2005-01-31 15:34:23
|
Jacek Rosik wrote: > Dnia 29-01-2005, sob o godzinie 21:38 +0100, Stephane Marchesin > napisa=B3(a): >=20 >>Jacek Rosik wrote: >> >> >>>Would 7000 PCI be a rv100? I think I have one somewhere. Without depth >>>tiling my Idea should be simpler to implement. >>> >> >>Yes. But, I'd like to have hyperz enabled by default soon, so you'll=20 >>probably have to deal with depth tiling on this card too. >>Anyway it might be useful for some testing. >=20 >=20 > I hope there will be an option to disable color tiling? >=20 You mean depth tiling I think ? There is no way to disable depth tiling on radeon, these cards have it=20 all the time (except the rv100 which only has depth tiling when hyperz=20 is used). >=20 >=20 >>>>>I'm not sure if it's possible to do that with depthOffset (well=20 >>>>>maybe). There is however an interesting bit in RB3D_CNTL=20 >>>>>(R200_DEPTH_XZ_OFFEST_ENABLE, I guess "XZ" is a typo, just as is=20 >>>>>"OFFEST"?) and the corresponding (?) register=20 >>>>>(R200_RB3D_DEPTHXY_OFFSET), which sound to me like they are exactly=20 >>>>>invented for that... >>>>> >>>> >>>>Yes, AFAICT the same thing (private z buffers) should work on r100. >>>> >>>>Now I think the real trouble with private z buffers is how these will= =20 >>>>interfere with hyperz... >>>> >>> >>>Huh I thought that hyperz would be simpler with private z buffers. Wha= t >>>about private z buffers and private back buffers. Since most >>>applications render only to back that would make them as fullscreen >>>applications. Wouldn't It be simpler to implement hyperz and color >>>tiling then? >>> >> >>The trouble with hyperz is we're not quite sure how it works for the=20 >>corner cases (for example I'm not sure if it's possible to have private= =20 >>depth buffers + hyperz). >>Not to mention that private depth or back buffers are a real pain to ad= d=20 >>since you'd need a fb memory allocator. >> >>Btw, you don't want a private back buffer because this would disable=20 >>pageflip (which is way faster than the copy). >=20 >=20 > I don't think this is argument against private backbuffers. Pageflippin= g > only works with single client. We can still do pageflipping with single > client with shared depth buffer and switch to private with more > applications. Moreover we can detect fullscreen situation and do > pageflipping even with private buffers too.=20 Right, in any case there has to be a mechanism to enable/disable it.=20 However, the fullscreen hooks are long dead. >=20 > Anyway private z buffers would be a first step towards privet buffers. > Do You think It would be possible to allocate z buffers with current X > memory manager as pixmaps of appropriate size? This would be a > temporary, just to test such solution. I think X can kick pixmaps out of video memory as it likes, so that=20 might not be very reliable. Stephane |