On 14 January 2017 at 02:31, Andres Rodriguez <andre...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On 13 January 2017 at 23:44, Andres Rodriguez <andre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > All extension arrays are global, but only one of them refers to instance >> > extensions. >> > >> > The device extension array refers to extensions that are common across >> > all physical devices. This disctinction will be more imporant once we >> Typos: "distinction" and "important" >> >> > have dynamic extension support for devices. >> > >> I think that this and 3/3 are very good idea, but since RADV supports >> only one device I'm not sure that they're applicable, yet. >> Not too familiar with the RADV code so I might be off there. > > > Besides differences in HW functionality, another use for this feature would > be to expose an extension only if the software stack supports it. > Guess I was drooling too much over someone adding multiple devices support for radv ;-)
> Eg. something like: > > if (libdrm_version >= x && drm_version >= y) > register_extension(...) > > This will come into play with some of the other patches on amd-gfx that > you've helped me review :) > Yw. As you get to the respective work - please don't base it on libdrm version. Please check that the kernel module is old enough either via a) a module version check or b) -EINVAL as returned by the module input validation. Former seems to be used by radeon/amdgpu userspace while the latter by the i915 one. Thanks Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
