[Mesa-dev] Should we need one release function for DRI's GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap?
krh at bitplanet.net
Fri Jan 7 06:01:01 PST 2011
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Zhao, Juan J <juan.j.zhao at intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 08:36 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Zhao, Juan J <juan.j.zhao at intel.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 08:28 -0500, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Zhao, Juan J <juan.j.zhao at intel.com> wrote:
>> >> > Hi all,
>> >> >
>> >> > In the structure “__DRItexBufferExtensionRec”, we don’t have
>> >> > one release interface now. But in our platform, we need to release some
>> >> > resources.
>> >> >
>> >> > Why we don’t need the release interface? Or should we add
>> >> > one?
>> >> In the open source drivers, glXBindTexImageEXT is pretty much the same
>> >> as glBindTexture. The pixmaps stays bound until you bind another
>> >> texture or pixmap, at which point all the resources are released.
>> >> There is nothing for the open source drivers to do in release, so the
>> >> DRI extension never had a release function. If you need a release
>> >> function, just send a patch and we can add it. You'll need to bump
>> >> the extension version number and then add the call to release in the
>> >> dri loaders (libGL, AIGLX, egl_dri2) conditional on the extension
>> >> version.
>> > Thanks a lot! :)
>> > I add this interface. Would you please help to check it?
>> >> Kristian
>> Looks good, just a few commets: I don't think we need the format
>> argument in release do we? I'd like to drop that to make it a little
>> easier to call the release function.
> Thank your for your comments.:)
> Yes, we don't need this. I just removed this parameter.
>> Also, in files in the mesa repo,
>> and in particular dri_interface.h, we don't need to check for
>> __DRI_TEX_BUFFER_VERSION >=3, since we know exactly what versions are
>> available. Only the AIGLX code in X (and potentially other
>> out-of-tree users of the DRI driver interface) need this.
> OK. And I updated this.
>> And please
>> keep the commit message under 80 characters wide: use a short
>> description in the header, then provide more detail in the following
>> lines, if necessary.
> Thanks a lot. I corrected the commit message.
>> Finally, why do you need the invalidate call in
> I think the invalidate call is used to flush and bump the stamp
> sequence. When the stamp is changed, we will update render buffers and
> finally update frame-buffer size. Now we are releasing the texture
> image, so we need this call.
But we're binding a pixmap - they never change size and never need to
be invalidated. Does it not work without the invalidate call there?
As it is, it introduces a roundtrip on every bind/release cycle.
Aside from the invalidate call, the patch is good to go.
More information about the mesa-dev