Hi Emil, the approach Dave used is ok and makes this obsolete. I talked about this to him in IRC. I actually _don't_ want a gallium like approach and didn't like this patch too much. This was just he least amount of changes without touching anything else and still make it work.
Having said that, I think the whole LLVM stuff should be handled differently. I wait for radv beeing merged before proposing any chances to not make it more difficult than it should be. Tobias Am Mittwoch, 5. Oktober 2016, 13:16:45 CEST schrieb Emil Velikov: > On 2 October 2016 at 20:45, Tobias Droste <tdro...@gmx.de> wrote: > > This reuse the same logic gallium uses to determine if LLVM is needed or > > not: > > --enable-vulkan-llvm is set to yes if at least one vulkan driver is > > active and the host is i3*6 or x86_64. > > To build vulkan drivers without LLVM (e.g. intel) one has to add > > --disable-vulkan-llvm. > > > > In order to make this all work the vulkan driver check has to move > > either diretcly below or directly above the gallium driver checks. > > Move them below the gallium driver stuff. > > Having a blond moment here - is there an actual issue with the way > (Dave/Bas) did the Vulkan/LLVM detection ? > > If the goal is to have a more gallium-like approach that isn't > applicable since the gallium aux modules (using LLVM) are linked in > every driver - regardless if it uses them or not. Admittedly one could > untangle this and make the LLVM requirement implicit as requesting a > driver which uses LLVM. > > Even then, some modules can optionally make use of it (LLVM) for which > we'll still need the toggle :-\ > > Afaict RADV does not use the gallium aux module so the above should > not be needed, no ? > > -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
