On 16/05/14 03:03, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On 15.05.2014 21:13, Emil Velikov wrote: > >>> On 15.05.2014 10:58, Marek Olšák wrote: >>>> Hi everybody, >>>> >>>> Some distros seem to care about the size of Mesa, so I came up with >>>> this little patch. >>>> >>>> It puts r600g and radeonsi into r300_dri.so. The result is one shared >>>> library which contains all three drivers. Also, all driver loaders in >>>> Mesa should now always load the r300 driver instead of r600 and >>>> radeonsi. >>>> >>>> The radeon winsys is created first, which then creates the correct >>>> screen (r300, r600, or radeonsi) according to the PCI ID. >>>> >>>> The libGL loader has actually been ignoring the driver name from the X >>>> server for quite some time, so nothing needs to be done for this >>>> outside of Mesa. >>>> >>>> This is for *_dri.so only, the other targets are still separate and >>>> probably broken with this patch. (VDPAU, XvMC, egl-gallium, OpenCL?) >>>> >>>> What's missing: >>>> - do the same for the other targets/APIs >>>> - remove r600 and radeonsi targets and clean up the build system >>>> >>>> Original files without debugging symbols: >>>> 5.9MB r300_dri.so >>>> 6.5MB r600_dri.so >>>> 5.7MB radeonsi_dri.so >>>> Megaradeon: >>>> 7.0MB r300_dri.so (all 3 drivers) >>>> >>>> If somebody who cares about the size of Mesa wants to finish this up, >>>> the patch is attached. This is only a proof that it's not really >>>> difficult. What remains is mostly just build system work. >>> >>> FWIW, I think it would be cleaner to use a new name instead of reusing >>> any existing name. >>> >>> >> FWIW currently only radeon drivers are split in such a way - freedreno and >> nouveau have been using such separation at winsys level as far back as I can >> remember. > > r300 and r600 didn't share much if any code when they were classic Mesa > drivers. > One does not need to share code to use the approach :) Although it makes sense more sense if they do.
> >> Any thoughts about backwards compatibility - old loader (libGL, libEGL etc.) >> and new r300_dri? Example: X/ddx requests r600_dri, whereas it does not >> exist. >> >> If the above is not a concern, then a nicer approach would be to rename the >> classic radeon to r100/radeon-vieux, and use radeon for the gallium driver >> (idea borrowed from nouveau). Otherwise we will need to create hardlink for >> each gallium driver. > > Xorg has a loader as well, so I think there's no sane way around keeping > the existing names as links. > Kind of deliberately mentioned the option as I've already tried it and it seems to work nicely with nouveau + swrast. AFAIK the classic megadriver uses the same approach. On 15/05/14 14:55, Marek Olšák wrote: > Yeah, hardlinks might be needed to keep old libGL working. and On 15/05/14 14:02, Christian König wrote: > The whole approach sounds like a good idea to me. > > Renaming the old driver would probably work (with a little confusion on the > users side of course), but our marketing recently suggested a different name. > We should discuss that internally at AMD first. > > Christian. IMHO those two slightly diverge. One might want to establish if backwards compatibility is an issue and then take a look at the possible names. I would personally opt for compatibility. Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
