On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 15 September 2017 at 09:12, Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com> > wrote: >> On 2017-09-14 15:36:10, Romain Failliot wrote: >>> Le 14 sept. 2017 6:11 PM, "Bas Nieuwenhuizen" <b...@basnieuwenhuizen.nl> a >>> écrit : >>> >>> > For vulkan, because 1.0 is the initial version, there are no >>> > extensions to implement to get to that version, so having an >>> > extensions list would be nonsensical. >>> >>> I don't think it is nonsensical, say the nouveau devs starts to work on a >>> Vulkan 1.0 driver and they'd like to show their progress in features.txt. I >>> think it would be interesting for them to have the list of extensions to >>> implement to be Vulkan 1.0 compliant, so they could flag which extensions >>> are done, in progress or not started. >> >> That would be fine, except I don't think the 1.0 features are bucketed >> into a set of 'extensions'. Right? I thought 1.0 was the baseline, and >> extensions were built upon that. >> > > I think Romain missed Bas's point. There is no extension list to get to 1.0. > 1.0 is step one. The closest thing is probably the device features list, > and even that you don't expect any device to fill all of it, so what 100% is > differs for every device.
Also you can implement 0% of the feature list and still be vulkan 1.0 compliant ;) - Bas > > Dave. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
