On 23.01.2016 02:14, Marek Olšák wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 22 January 2016 at 16:50, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 22 January 2016 at 12:24, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> From: Marek Olšák <marek.ol...@amd.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This allows building VDPAU/OMX/VA drivers without OpenGL and its
>>>>>> dependencies.
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> configure.ac | 5 +++++
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
>>>>>> index 8d19dab..04b5fd8 100644
>>>>>> --- a/configure.ac
>>>>>> +++ b/configure.ac
>>>>>> @@ -2159,7 +2159,12 @@ gallium_require_drm_loader() {
>>>>>> fi
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +dnl This is for Glamor. Skip this if OpenGL is disabled.
>>>>>> require_egl_drm() {
>>>>>> + if test "x$enable_opengl" = xno; then
>>>>>> + return 0
>>>>>> + fi
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> case "$with_egl_platforms" in
>>>>>> *drm*)
>>>>>> ;;
>>>> ... the hole idea of having this error out is a gross workaround imho.
>>>> While I could not find anything concrete to point out initially seems
>>>> like you have found it. And now we add a workaround on top of the
>>>> workaround :-\
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is (very) unlikely that radeonsi GPUs will have 2d accel
>>>> without glamor and yes it is required in those cases. But that does
>>>> not mean that we must mandate egl+drm but recommend it ? After all one
>>>> can have egl+wayland+radeonsi mesa (without egl+drm) on a xserver-less
>>>> setup, can't they ?
>>>
>>> I don't know what Wayland uses, but if it doesn't use egl+drm, that's fine.
A Wayland compositor typically uses EGL+DRM, but I guess there could be
a setup where the compositor generally uses a non-radeonsi GPU and only
Wayland clients use radeonsi.
>>> We still have to require egl+drm for GLX/DRI support, so we can loosen
>>> the requirement a little bit, but we can't remove it completely.
>>> That's how I see it.
>>>
>> The point I'm making is that one cannot forsee what the user will do
>> (run) at build time. Thus sticking with a big fan warning is a
>> sensible thing to do. If no-one pays attention to the warnings (I've
>> been guilty a few times as well) then it's their own fault - it's not
>> like we print (m)any and things get lost amidst the noise ?
>
> Michel, any opinion on removing require_egl_drm from configure.ac?
I can only agree with that if the EGL drm platform is enabled by default
(when possible), otherwise we'll get support burden again because of the
missing EGL drm platform.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
