Hi On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Marc-André Lureau > <marcandre.lur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Marek > > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> The idea of drm_driver.h and the DRM prefix is that it's meant to be > >> Linux-specific, and winsys_handle should be considered an opaque > >> structure by most state trackers. I think VMWare have their own > >> definition of winsys_handle for Windows. > > > > > > Is this in upstream? I couldn't find it. > > I don't think so. > If they have downstream patch to mesa, it's unfair to make such guesses to reject a patch. They should speak up and propose an alternative in this case, or simply patch it differently. > > > >> > >> > >> The terms like "KMS", "SHARED" (= FLINK), and FD (= DMABUF) are very > >> DRM-specific, so they shouldn't be considered a standard gallium/winsys > >> interface. > > > > > > Perhaps they could be renamed so other terms, not drm-specific, could be > > introduced? > > > > DRM_API_HANDLE_TYPE_SHARED -> WINSYS_HANDLE_TYPE_DRM_FLINK > > DRM_API_HANDLE_TYPE_KMS -> WINSYS_HANDLE_TYPE_DRM_KMS > > DRM_API_HANDLE_TYPE_FD -> WINSYS_HANDLE_TYPE_DRM_DMABUF > > > > It was possible to introduce a drisw-specific winsys struct before the > gbm > > "kms_swrast" driver, but since then both headers are used > simultaneously, so > > a common structure seems necessary. > > It's still Linux-specific though, so DRM_* seems more > appropriate than WINSYS_HANDLE_*. > Ok, but my point is to not make it drm specific, so a shmid handle can be use by drisw. -- Marc-André Lureau
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
