On Tue, 2019-04-23 at 19:21 -0400, Marek Olšák wrote: > Then I think a separate EGL extension that exposes swrast would be > better. The thing with the device extensions is that swrast is not a > device.
Enh. I've got dumb GPUs I need to support, they need to run OpenGL, and if they were running swrast-on-otherwise-dumb-gem, I can make posting the front buffer to the compositor be (at least sometimes) zero-copy, instead of the XPutImage thing that drisw currently has to do. So I don't think it's necessarily the case that swrast doesn't have "hardware" support behind it. More generally, if the term in the extension spec was "renderer" not "device" I don't think we'd be having this discussion. And I think it's worth having renderer selection be orthogonal in an API sense. - ajax _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
