I'm considering freedreno a2xx, although that is not a separate build option from meson PoV.. I'd welcome arguments one way or another from any stakeholder
(we also have a bit of a CI gap for a4xx.. although other than the usual "shuffle all the registers/bitfields around" that we see between gens it has a lot in common with a3xx/a5xx which do have CI coverage, so I'm a bit less concerned about unintentionally breaking it) BR, -R On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 3:48 PM Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Alright that's r300 and swr that are going to find a new home in the lts > branch. Do any other gallium drivers want to join them? > > Marek > > On Mon., Mar. 29, 2021, 13:51 Zielinski, Jan, <jan.zielin...@intel.com> wrote: >> >> On Thursday, March 25, 2021 8:47 Marek Olšák wrote: >> > Same thinking could be applied to other gallium drivers for old hardware >> > that don't receive new development and are becoming more and more >> > irrelevant every year due to their age. >> >> Can we also keep Gallium for OpenSWR driver on -lts branch? We currently are >> focusing effort on other OSS projects, and want to maintain OpenSWR at its >> current feature level, but we are often seeing Mesa core changes causing >> problems in OpenSWR, that we can’t always address right away. So, we would >> like to point our users to a stable branch, that limits the amount of effort >> required for OpenSWR to support its existing users. >> >> Jan >> >> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021, at 09:15, Jason Ekstrand wrote: >> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:28 AM Rob Clark <mailto:robdcl...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 3:15 PM Dylan Baker <mailto:dy...@pnwbakers.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Hi list, >> > > > >> > > > We've talked about it a number of times, but I think it's time time to >> > > > discuss splitting the classic drivers off of the main development >> > > > branch >> > > > again, although this time I have a concrete plan for how this would >> > > > work. >> > > > >> > > > First, why? Basically, all of the classic drivers are in maintanence >> > > > mode (even i965). Second, many of them rely on code that no one works >> > > > on, and very few people still understand. There is no CI for most of >> > > > them, and the Intel CI is not integrated with gitlab, so it's easy to >> > > > unintentionally break them, and this breakage usually isn't noticed >> > > > until just before or just after a release. 21.0 was held up (in small >> > > > part, also me just getting behind) because of such breakages. >> > > > >> > > > I konw there is some interest in getting i915g in good enough shape >> > > > that >> > > > it could replace i915c, at least for the common case. I also am aware >> > > > that Dave, Ilia, and Eric (with some pointers from Ken) have been >> > > > working on a gallium driver to replace i965. Neither of those things >> > > > are >> > > > ready yet, but I've taken them into account. >> > > > >> > > > Here's the plan: >> > > > >> > > > 1) 21.1 release happens >> > > > 2) we remove classic from master >> > > > 3) 21.1 reaches EOL because of 21.2 >> > > > 4) we fork the 21.1 branch into a "classic-lts"¹ branch >> > > > 5) we disable all vulkan and gallium drivers in said branch, at least >> > > > at >> > > > the Meson level >> > > >> > > I'm +1 for the -lts branch.. the layering between mesa "classic" and >> > > gallium is already starting to get poked thru in the name of >> > > performance, and we've already discovered cases of classic drivers >> > > being broken for multiple months with no one noticing. I think a >> > > slower moving -lts branch is the best approach to keeping things >> > > working for folks with older hw. >> > > >> > > But possibly there is some value in not completely disabling gallium >> > > completely in the -lts branch. We do have some older gallium drivers >> > > which do not have CI coverage and I think are not used frequently by >> > > developers who are tracking the latest main/master branch. I'm not >> > > suggesting that we remove them from the main (non-lts) branch but it >> > > might be useful to be able to recommend users of those drivers stick >> > > with the -lts version for better stability? >> > >> > I agree with this. Generally, I don't think we should delete anything >> > from the -lts branch. Doing so only risks more breakage. We probably >> > want to change some meson build defaults to not build anything but old >> > drivers but that's it. >> > >> > --Jason >> > >> > > BR, >> > > -R >> > > >> > > > 6) We change the name and precidence of the glvnd loader file >> > > > 7) apply any build fixups (turn of intel generators for versions >= >> > > > 7.5, >> > > > for example >> > > > 8) maintain that branch with build and critical bug fixes only >> > > > >> > > > This gives ditros and end users two options. >> > > > 1) then can build *only* the legacy branch in the a normal Mesa >> > > > provides >> > > > libGL interfaces fashion >> > > > 2) They can use glvnd and install current mesa and the legacy branch in >> > > > parallel >> > > > >> > > > Because of glvnd, we can control which driver will get loaded first, >> > > > and >> > > > thus if we decide i915g or the i965 replacement is ready and turn it on >> > > > by default it will be loaded by default. An end user who doesn't like >> > > > this can add a new glvnd loader file that makes the classic drivers >> > > > higher precident and continue to use them. >> > > > >> > > > Why fork from 21.1 instead of master? >> > > > >> > > > First, it allows us to delete classic immediately, which will allow >> > > > refactoring to happen earlier in the cycle, and for any fallout to be >> > > > caught and hopefully fixed before the release. Second, it means that >> > > > when a user is switched from 21.1 to the new classic-lts branch, there >> > > > will be no regressions, and no one has to spend time figuring out what >> > > > broke and fixing the lts branch. >> > > > >> > > > When you say "build and critical bug fixes", what do you mean? >> > > > >> > > > I mean update Meson if we rely on something that in the future is >> > > > deprecated and removed, and would prevent building the branch or an >> > > > relying on some compiler behavior that changes, gaping exploitable >> > > > security holes, that kind of thing. >> > > > >> > > > footnotes >> > > > ¹Or whatever color you like your >> > > > bikeshed_______________________________________________ >> > > > mesa-dev mailing list >> > > > mailto:mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org >> > > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > mesa-dev mailing list >> > > mailto:mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org >> > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev >> > >> >> -- >> Dylan Baker >> mailto:dy...@pnwbakers.com >> _______________________________________________ >> mesa-dev mailing list >> mailto:mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev >> Intel Technology Poland sp. z o.o. >> ul. Sowackiego 173 | 80-298 Gdask | Sd Rejonowy Gdask Pnoc | VII Wydzia >> Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sdowego - KRS 101882 | NIP 957-07-52-316 | >> Kapita zakadowy 200.000 PLN. >> Ta wiadomo wraz z zacznikami jest przeznaczona dla okrelonego adresata i moe >> zawiera informacje poufne. W razie przypadkowego otrzymania tej wiadomoci, >> prosimy o powiadomienie nadawcy oraz trwae jej usunicie; jakiekolwiek >> przegldanie lub rozpowszechnianie jest zabronione. >> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the >> sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended >> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies; any review or >> distribution by others is strictly prohibited. > > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
