Bug 89459 - [g965] piglit.spec.arb_pixel_buffer_object.texsubimage array pbo
Summary: [g965] piglit.spec.arb_pixel_buffer_object.texsubimage array pbo
Alias: None
Product: Mesa
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Drivers/DRI/i965 (show other bugs)
Version: git
Hardware: x86-64 (AMD64) Linux (All)
: lowest normal
Assignee: Intel 3D Bugs Mailing List
QA Contact: Intel 3D Bugs Mailing List
Keywords: bisected, regression
Depends on:
Reported: 2015-03-06 07:44 UTC by Mark Janes
Modified: 2019-09-25 18:53 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
i915 platform:
i915 features:


Description Mark Janes 2015-03-06 07:44:17 UTC
a08bff1e98b8e630f8bdf341af1491cd99e7d104 caused a regression (assert) on g965 for this piglit test.
Comment 1 Neil Roberts 2015-03-06 16:44:58 UTC
This is the assert:

texsubimage: ../../../../../../src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_wm_surface_state.c:691: brw_update_renderbuffer_surface: Assertion `brw->has_surface_tile_offset || (tile_x == 0 && tile_y == 0)' failed.

Without that patch the texsubimage test doesn't use the PBO path because it uses GL_UNPACK_IMAGE_HEIGHT. However I think you can make it hit that assert without using the image height property so the patch doesn't cause the regression but makes the test case detect the existing bug.

I can't find any 965 hardware but I can replicate it with a GM45 device if I force Mesa to set brw->has_surface_tile_offset to false. It looks like the problem is that the array slices aren't aligned to a tile and it needs to use a tile offset but it can't. The fbo-array test fails in a similar way. In that case maybe it's just a hardware limitation that 965 can't really render to array slices other than 0. We should probably have a way to mark the framebuffer as incomplete in that case.
Comment 2 Neil Roberts 2015-03-06 17:34:47 UTC
Or I guess an alternative solution would be to make that intel_renderbuffer_move_to_temp mechanism select only a single slice of the array texture instead of creating a temporary mt that has the same depth. The comment just above the call to that implies that it is meant to handle the array_index but I guess it doesn't.
Comment 3 GitLab Migration User 2019-09-25 18:53:36 UTC
-- GitLab Migration Automatic Message --

This bug has been migrated to freedesktop.org's GitLab instance and has been closed from further activity.

You can subscribe and participate further through the new bug through this link to our GitLab instance: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/issues/1477.

Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.