On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Giovanni can you test the series that I've not butchered anything else during
> the rebase ?
Oh hey, sorry I missed the bit that I was expected to test the patches.
Unfortunately, something indeed got lost: the logic to choose the
kms_swrast driver in preference to the swrast one.
In my patches, I had:
static int
dri_screen_create_sw(struct gbm_dri_device *dri)
{
int ret;
ret = dri_screen_create_dri2(dri, "kms_swrast");
if (ret == 0)
return ret;
return dri_screen_create_swrast(dri);
}
That would take the place of dri_screen_create_swrast in the
dri_device_create() call site.
With your patches, the kms_swrast driver is effectively never loaded.
Giovanni
> Thanks
> Emil
>
> On 11/07/14 18:19, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Here is hopefully the last iteration of Giovanni's patches, rebased
>> on top of the buildsystem "mayhem" that I've caused recently.
>>
>> I've a few small changes in patch 1, most significant of which is
>> s/LIBGL_ALWAYS_SOFTWARE/GBM_ALWAYS_SOFTWARE, as I think that having an
>> LIBGL envvar to control gbm is ambiguous and may cause some unexpected
>> issues.
>>
>> Giovanni can you please test that I haven't broken the series with
>> megadrivers and/or during rebase.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Emil
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
