On 1/27/25 07:57, Akihiko Odaki wrote: > On 2025/01/27 3:06, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> On 1/21/25 07:26, Akihiko Odaki wrote: >> ... >>>>> I feel the dependency information for virglrenderer and Mesa are more >>>>> suited for the Mesa documentation as they are not specific to QEMU and >>>>> potentially useful also for e.g., libkrun and crosvm. >>>> >>>> I think while everything is in so much flux it doesn't hurt to include >>>> in our docs. I don't know if mesa currently has a dedicated page for >>>> GPU >>>> virtualisation. >>> >>> Mesa has pages for VirGL and Venus, which can be linked from the >>> respective parts of this documentation. gfxstream is not documented but >>> I think most people will use it only for Android anyway. A documentation >>> for DRM native context will be a nice addition for Mesa. I will not >>> object if you put this information to QEMU documentation though. >> >> Adding native context doc to Mesa indeed will be a good move, as well as >> adding links to the Mesa virgl/venus pages in QEMU. >> >> RE requirements documentation, it's also a valid point that stuff like >> build flags should belong to the relevant projects. On the other hand, >> it's a common headache for a newcoming people to figure everything out >> from scratch and having more centralized documentation helps. The build >> requirements aren't cleanly documented anywhere AFAICT, and the >> requirements also differ based on VMM. I'll update and keep this patch >> in v6, the requirements info should stay actual for a next couple years >> IMO. Let's discuss it further in v6 if more objections will arise. >> > > I think it's fine to require one click to reach the relevant documentation. > > How do the requirements described here vary with VMM?
Requirements don't vary much. For example virglrenderer minigbm support is mandatory for crosvm, while for QEMU it's not. > I'm not entirely sure the documentation will stay as is for that long. > The requirements of Intel native context refer to merge requests that > can be merged sooner or later. Asahi may need more updates if you > document it too because its DRM ABI is still unstable. The unstable parts of course will need to be updated sooner, but the stable should be solid for years. I expect that about a year later requirements will need to be revisited. -- Best regards, Dmitry
