On 16 January 2017 at 14:16, Bas Nieuwenhuizen <b...@basnieuwenhuizen.nl> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> 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. > > Using the kernel exported DRM version seems to be common practice for > radeonsi and the amdgpu and radeon winsyses though? Indeed that's the case. I kind of said[meant to say] the same :-]
> That version has > been increased in both kernel drivers to indiciate new features too. > libdrm version will probably need to be compile time though anyway. > I would not bother with the latter - just bump LIBDRM_AMDGPU_REQUIRED and enjoy. -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
