[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 1/2] configure.ac: don't require EGL/DRM ang GBM if OpenGL is disabled

[Marek Olšák]

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote:
> On 31.01.2016 19:30, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 25 January 2016 at 11:24, Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote:
>>> On 23.01.2016 02:14, Marek Olšák wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 22 January 2016 at 16:50, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22 January 2016 at 12:24, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> From: Marek Olšák <marek.olsak at amd.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This allows building VDPAU/OMX/VA drivers without OpenGL and its
>>>>>>>>> dependencies.
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>  configure.ac | 5 +++++
>>>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
>>>>>>>>> index 8d19dab..04b5fd8 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/configure.ac
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/configure.ac
>>>>>>>>> @@ -2159,7 +2159,12 @@ gallium_require_drm_loader() {
>>>>>>>>>      fi
>>>>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +dnl This is for Glamor. Skip this if OpenGL is disabled.
>>>>>>>>>  require_egl_drm() {
>>>>>>>>> +    if test "x$enable_opengl" = xno; then
>>>>>>>>> +        return 0
>>>>>>>>> +    fi
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>      case "$with_egl_platforms" in
>>>>>>>>>          *drm*)
>>>>>>>>>              ;;
>>>>>>> ... the hole idea of having this error out is a gross workaround imho.
>>>>>>> While I could not find anything concrete to point out initially seems
>>>>>>> like you have found it. And now we add a workaround on top of the
>>>>>>> workaround :-\
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes it is (very) unlikely that radeonsi GPUs will have 2d accel
>>>>>>> without glamor and yes it is required in those cases. But that does
>>>>>>> not mean that we must mandate egl+drm but recommend it ? After all one
>>>>>>> can have egl+wayland+radeonsi mesa (without egl+drm) on a xserver-less
>>>>>>> setup, can't they ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know what Wayland uses, but if it doesn't use egl+drm, that's fine.
>>>
>>> A Wayland compositor typically uses EGL+DRM, but I guess there could be
>>> a setup where the compositor generally uses a non-radeonsi GPU and only
>>> Wayland clients use radeonsi.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> We still have to require egl+drm for GLX/DRI support, so we can loosen
>>>>>> the requirement a little bit, but we can't remove it completely.
>>>>>> That's how I see it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The point I'm making is that one cannot forsee what the user will do
>>>>> (run) at build time. Thus sticking with a big fan warning is a
>>>>> sensible thing to do. If no-one pays attention to the warnings (I've
>>>>> been guilty a few times as well) then it's their own fault - it's not
>>>>> like we print (m)any and things get lost amidst the noise ?
>>>>
>>>> Michel, any opinion on removing require_egl_drm from configure.ac?
>>>
>> Note: I wasn't suggesting that we remove it - just demote from ERROR to WARN.
>>
>>> I can only agree with that if the EGL drm platform is enabled by default
>>> (when possible), otherwise we'll get support burden again because of the
>>> missing EGL drm platform.
>>>
>> Even with egl/gbm enabled by default we still out to warn when one
>> builds radeonsi(amdgpu) without egl/gbm. Otherwise there'll be no
>> indication to the user ?
>>
>> Does that sound reasonable ?
>
> Sounds good to me.

The question is: If configure printed a warning, would it be noticed by users?

Marek