On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Christian König <deathsim...@vodafone.de> wrote: > Am 22.01.2016 um 19:24 schrieb Ilia Mirkin: >> >> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Christian König >> <deathsim...@vodafone.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> Form autofoo perspective things look great. >>> >>> Thanks, that exactly what I wanted to know. >>> >>>> Although I second Ilia's concern - we need a form of runtime detection >>>> here. Pretty much all distros ship the vdpau(+ other video driver >>>> backend) in a separate library. Thus this will likely get us nowhere >>>> we want - as I'm suspecting this is to assist the unsuspecting user, >>>> which hasn't installed package X or Y in the first place ? >>> >>> As I said, Mesa should NOT check what vdpau backend libraries are >>> installed >>> or used before advertising NV_vdpau_interop. >>> >>> Take a look at how the interop works, NV_vdpau_interop should be >>> advertised >>> if the OpenGL implementation provides the necessary functions. What and >>> if a >>> VDPAU backend gets loaded to work with that is completely independent of >>> this. >>> >>> We want to switch over to a DMABuf based interop implementation so that >>> we >>> can get away from using the Mesa internal structures. >>> >>> This not only has the advantage of fixing this ugly hack, but also would >>> allow an application to decode on one driver (radeonsi) and display with >>> another one (r600). >> >> If the purpose is not to conditionally not advertise based on >> availability, what is the purpose of this patch? > > > To check if we compile the state tracker as well and so fulfill the > dependencies of the state tracker. > > E.g. for example for a DMABuf based interop I might need some defines from > the VDPAU headers. > > The alternative is to make the OpenGL implementation depend on the presence > of libvdpau directly, but I had the feeling that this approach would be more > convenient. > > Sorry for the confusion, I never intended to make any this an extra check > for the unsuspecting user. But rather just solve the dependencies without > checking for libvdpau twice. > > I should have probably better explained that in the first place.
Aha I see, so this is a prelude to some changes you'd like to make that would cause various breakage if you didn't also have all the vdpau stuff being built. In that case, this is Reviewed-by: Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
