On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Ian Romanick <i...@freedesktop.org> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Eric Anholt wrote: >> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 06:13:16 +0200, Luca Barbieri <l...@luca-barbieri.com> >> wrote: >> >>> It would be great if Intel switched to the i915g and i965g Gallium >>> drivers, since everyone else is concentrating their attention on >>> Gallium, since it's much easier and better to write drivers for it. >> >> I keep hearing this, and a bunch of people have been trying to build the >> equivalent gallium hardware drivers to various core drivers for a long >> time. So, can we get some details on a success story? What driver is >> now more correct/faster than it was before? By how much? How much of >> that was hardware enabling you did on the gallium side only? > > And never mind that you can't make a conformant OpenGL driver with > Gallium due to the impossibility of software fallbacks.
Hmm thinking more about it doing a proper software fallback for the rasterizer and fragment shader would mostly be trivial. What you would need to write for each driver is file that grabs all the cso:s states and plugs that into the helper object. Doing that is trivial since all state is in cso:s. Grabbing all the needed texture data from the hw textures would all be handled from the helper, since which textures to use is already given via the cso:s, but doing it would be trivial, as we can already run the software rasterizers on top of regular hardware driver (see src/gallium/winsys/sw/wrapper). And it might even be worth it since now we actually have a fast software rasterizer (for things more complex then glxgears and tunnel). Cheers Jakob. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
