[Mesa-dev] GLX extension for vendor name lookup in libglvnd

[Martin Peres]

On 14/03/16 19:16, Kyle Brenneman wrote:
>
> On 03/11/2016 05:25 PM, Martin Peres wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/03/16 20:07, Adam Jackson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2016-03-10 at 10:53 -0700, Kyle Brenneman wrote:
>>>> On 03/10/2016 10:47 AM, Martin Peres wrote:
>>>>> That could be a hacky way of handling the case where multiple 3D
>>>>> drivers could be used to drive the same GPU. This may be necessary in
>>>>> the future if two mesa drivers support the same GPU but one is
>>>>> considered better than the other. We can also imagine a case where a
>>>>> proprietary driver would need to be co-installable with an open source
>>>>> one and would still use the same DDX. Isn't that what AMD is going to
>>>>> do soon? Did anyone think about this case?
>>>> That case is the reason for allowing multiple vendor names. For a case
>>>> like AMD's driver, it would hand back two names. The order would be up
>>>> to the driver implementation, but I would guess that it would list the
>>>> proprietary driver first and the open source driver second. If the
>>>> proprietary one is installed, then the client would use it, and if not,
>>>> the client would use the open source one.
>>
>> Very good! That could be worth mentioning in the spec. To make it
>> clear that it is the intended goal and to help implementers understand
>> the logic behind this proposal.
> That's what I meant to convey with the description of multiple
> client-side drivers that work with the same server-side driver. But if
> that wasn't clear I can add a more specific example. Would something
> like this help?
>
>
>      For example, some vendors may have both a proprietary client-side
>      vendor library and an open source vendor library that work with the
>      same server-side driver. In that case, the server would return the
>      names for both of the vendor libraries. The client would then be able
>      to select one of those vendor libraries, depending on which of them is
>      installed.

This is definitely a nice addition, however, I propose to reword it to 
add information about priorities:


   For example, some vendors may have both a proprietary client-side
   vendor library and an open source vendor library that work with the
   same server-side driver. In that case, the server would return the
   names for both of the vendor libraries, in the order of preference.
   The client would then try to open them sequentially and select the
   first one that is present and got loaded successfully.

How does this sound?