| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
|
|
Directly taken from Mesa.
v2 (Ben): Updated copyright
Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
|
|
This will be less typing for the refactoring to come (which is use
struct brw_program_instruction in gram.y for the type of all the
instructions).
Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
|
|
The output of the parsing is a list of struct brw_program_instruction.
These instructions can be either GEN instructions aka struct
brw_instruction or labels. To make this more explicit we now have a type
to test to determine which instruction we are dealing with.
This will also allow to to pull the relocation bits into struct
brw_program_instruction instead of having them in the structure
representing the opcodes.
Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
|
|
From Mesa. This imports a bit more the of brw_eu* infrastructure (which
is going towards the right direction!) from mesa and the update is quite
a significant improvement over what we had.
I also verified that the changes that were done on the assembler old
version of brw_disasm.c were already supported by the Mesa version, and
indeed they were.
Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
|
