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

[Marek Olšák]

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:
>>> 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 ?

Michel, any opinion on removing require_egl_drm from configure.ac?

Thanks,
Marek