On 03/14/2016 11:43 AM, Martin Peres wrote:
On 14/03/16 19:16, Kyle Brenneman wrote:
On 03/11/2016 05:25 PM, Martin Peres wrote:
On 10/03/16 20:07, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 2016-03-10 at 10:53 -0700, Kyle Brenneman wrote:
On 03/10/2016 10:47 AM, Martin Peres wrote:
That could be a hacky way of handling the case where multiple 3D
drivers could be used to drive the same GPU. This may be
necessary in
the future if two mesa drivers support the same GPU but one is
considered better than the other. We can also imagine a case where a
proprietary driver would need to be co-installable with an open
source
one and would still use the same DDX. Isn't that what AMD is
going to
do soon? Did anyone think about this case?
That case is the reason for allowing multiple vendor names. For a
case
like AMD's driver, it would hand back two names. The order would
be up
to the driver implementation, but I would guess that it would list
the
proprietary driver first and the open source driver second. If the
proprietary one is installed, then the client would use it, and if
not,
the client would use the open source one.
Very good! That could be worth mentioning in the spec. To make it
clear that it is the intended goal and to help implementers understand
the logic behind this proposal.
That's what I meant to convey with the description of multiple
client-side drivers that work with the same server-side driver. But if
that wasn't clear I can add a more specific example. Would something
like this help?
For example, some vendors may have both a proprietary client-side
vendor library and an open source vendor library that work with the
same server-side driver. In that case, the server would return the
names for both of the vendor libraries. The client would then be
able
to select one of those vendor libraries, depending on which of
them is
installed.
This is definitely a nice addition, however, I propose to reword it to
add information about priorities:
For example, some vendors may have both a proprietary client-side
vendor library and an open source vendor library that work with the
same server-side driver. In that case, the server would return the
names for both of the vendor libraries, in the order of preference.
The client would then try to open them sequentially and select the
first one that is present and got loaded successfully.
How does this sound?
Issue #3 addresses the question of how the vendor names are ordered.
Instead of duplicating the description, maybe change the last sentence
to reference that issue:
"The client would then try loading each vendor library as described
below in Issue 3."
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
