From df266471b1f0eae54cf23fd59a741fa3be9b93df Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ben Skeggs Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:27:13 +1000 Subject: [PATCH] nouveau: return buffer map to something sane. Sorry, but no, we're not doing this.. Correctness always takes precedence over speed. Implement this higher up where you know it's safe to do so, and doesn't break other things in the process. --- .../drm/nouveau/common/nouveau_winsys_pipe.c | 20 ------------------- 1 file changed, 20 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/gallium/winsys/drm/nouveau/common/nouveau_winsys_pipe.c b/src/gallium/winsys/drm/nouveau/common/nouveau_winsys_pipe.c index c8f26d5fad8..683710ee3c3 100644 --- a/src/gallium/winsys/drm/nouveau/common/nouveau_winsys_pipe.c +++ b/src/gallium/winsys/drm/nouveau/common/nouveau_winsys_pipe.c @@ -121,26 +121,6 @@ nouveau_pipe_bo_map(struct pipe_winsys *pws, struct pipe_buffer *buf, if (flags & PIPE_BUFFER_USAGE_CPU_WRITE) map_flags |= NOUVEAU_BO_WR; - /* XXX: Technically incorrect. If the client maps a buffer for write-only - * and leaves part of the buffer untouched it probably expects those parts - * to remain intact. This is violated because we allocate a whole new buffer - * and don't copy the previous buffer's contents, so this optimization is - * only valid if the client intends to overwrite the whole buffer. - */ - if ((map_flags & NOUVEAU_BO_RDWR) == NOUVEAU_BO_WR && - !nouveau_bo_busy(nvbuf->bo, map_flags)) { - struct nouveau_pipe_winsys *nvpws = (struct nouveau_pipe_winsys *)pws; - struct nouveau_context *nv = nvpws->nv; - struct nouveau_device *dev = nv->nv_screen->device; - struct nouveau_bo *rename; - uint32_t flags = nouveau_flags_from_usage(nv, buf->usage); - - if (!nouveau_bo_new(dev, flags, buf->alignment, buf->size, &rename)) { - nouveau_bo_del(&nvbuf->bo); - nvbuf->bo = rename; - } - } - if (nouveau_bo_map(nvbuf->bo, map_flags)) return NULL; return nvbuf->bo->map; -- 2.30.2