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

[Emil Velikov]

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:
>> Hi Marek,
>>
>> On 22 January 2016 at 12:24, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Emil,
>>>
>>> Do you have any comment on this series?
>>>
>> I was secretly hoping that you'll forget about this patch because...
>>
>>> Marek
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> 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 ?

-Emil