On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote: > On 31.01.2016 19:30, Emil Velikov wrote: >> On 25 January 2016 at 11:24, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote: >>> 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? >>> >> Note: I wasn't suggesting that we remove it - just demote from ERROR to WARN. >> >>> 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. >>> >> Even with egl/gbm enabled by default we still out to warn when one >> builds radeonsi(amdgpu) without egl/gbm. Otherwise there'll be no >> indication to the user ? >> >> Does that sound reasonable ? > > Sounds good to me.
The question is: If configure printed a warning, would it be noticed by users? Marek _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev