This is still awaiting for comments. I'd rather hear what are the desirable modifications than try guessing.
On ma, 2014-11-10 at 15:18 +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > Hi, > > On pe, 2014-11-07 at 17:40 -0800, Eric Anholt wrote: > > Ian Romanick <i...@freedesktop.org> writes: > > > > > On 11/06/2014 06:16 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > >> On 06.11.2014 19:18, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > > >>> On to, 2014-11-06 at 18:12 +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > >>>> On 05.11.2014 20:14, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Modified not refer to DRI3, just uses the present extension to get rid > > >>>>> of the excess buffer invalidations. > > >>>> > > >>>> AFAICT there's no fallback from your changes to the current behaviour > > >>>> if > > >>>> the X server doesn't support the Present extension. There probably > > >>>> needs > > >>>> to be such a fallback. > > >>> > > >>> It gets rid of such nasty hack (the intel_viewport one), that I thought > > >>> there is no point making fallback. Because without this, the egl dri2 > > >>> backend is fundamentally broken anyway. > > >> > > >> Well, AFAICT your code uses Present extension functionality > > >> unconditionally, without checking that the X server supports Present. I > > >> can't see how that could possibly work on an X server which doesn't > > >> support Present, but I think it would be better to keep it working at > > >> least as badly as it does now in that case. :) > > > > > > I was going to say pretty much the same thing. Aren't there (non-Intel) > > > drivers that don't do Present? If I'm not mistaken, some parts of DRI3 > > > (not sure about Present) are even disabled in the Intel driver when SNA > > > is in use... or at least that was the case at one point. > > > > They actually get a fallback implementation if there's no driver > > support, which would be sufficient for this code. > > > > However, Present is too new for Mesa to be unconditionally relying on in > > my opinion. > > Based on above discussion, I would bring back the dynamic detection like > in the original patch. But for present extension instead of DRI3. > Technically it would be very much the same, different naming > conventions. And also, re-use the USE_INVALIDATE extension instead of > adding DRI3 extension. > > Would that be an acceptable solution? > > Regards, Joonas > > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
