[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 00/10] egl: mixed bag of fixes/cleanups

[Emil Velikov]

[Dropping Neil's email, as it bounces]

On 29 August 2017 at 11:43, Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org> wrote:

>>>>   egl: allow RGB565 formats in eglCreateWaylandBufferFromImageWL
>>>
>>> I've been avoiding trying to expand use of this API, in all honesty.
>>>
>> Any particular reason?
>>
>> Quick search on the webs + my system shows no users of the extension,
>> apart from weston-nested.
>> Even there it's not a hard requirement.
>>
>> Any ideas if the extension was ever used [elsewhere], should we
>> consider deprecating it?
>
> I haven't seen much use of it, myself. It's also only really useful
> for wl_drm; I'd prefer to push zwp_linux_dmabuf instead. It also
> relies on a more perfect proxying of wl_drm than we necessarily
> actually implement.
>
Right. So I guess as weston-nested is updated to use wl_dmabuf we
could sketch an evil plan ;-)


>>>>   egl: add juicy comment about WL_bind_wayland_display +
>>>>     wl_drm/wl_dmabuf
>>>
>>> It depends on a couple of things, really. Firstly, on Mesa's general
>>> feature deprecation schedule. Secondly, on external support
>>> (Weston/Mutter/Enlightenment are fine, no support yet in
>>> KWin/WLC/Smithay/...). Thirdly, on how cleanly we can separate it. If
>>> we can break out all the BindWaylandDisplay code more than we already
>>> have, it might be easier to maintain. And lastly, on NVIDIA: I believe
>>> being a Streams provider requires BindWaylandDisplay, so we might need
>>> that to be replaced before we can rip it out of Mesa.
>>>
>>> Having the comment expanded to cover these might be nice.
>>
>> Fully agree on all points, although I think the priority is in the opposite way.
>> But above all does the extension make sense, or even yet, can it be
>> implemented with wl_dmabuf?
>
> The one thing it provides over and above wl_dmabuf is device
> advertisement, to guide the implementation towards a particular GPU.
> So maybe it makes sense to keep it just for that, purely for render
> nodes.
>
Ack, so it'll be a fairly trivial implementation.

> Also VA-API still uses wl_drm, so we need to wean that away from it first.
>
Right, that's why I flipped the order ;-) Although they are
considering breaking the ABI with the v2.0 branch.

For which I have some sweet patches - purge wl_drm, forbid use of card nodes...
Need to finish that one of the of these days.
</offtopic>

>>>>   egl/wayland: group wl_win specific code together
>>>>   egl/wayland: make sure HAS_$FORMAT is set for wl_dmabuf
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Daniel Stone <daniels at collabora.com>
>>>
>> As above - I'm guessing the r-b stands for both patches?
>
> Yep!
>
Ack.

Thanks
Emil