[Mesa-dev] [PATCH v2 2/5] r600: remove custom and incomplete OpenCL code paths

[Emil Velikov]

On 31 May 2017 at 18:18, Jan Vesely <jan.vesely at rutgers.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-05-31 at 17:48 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 31 May 2017 at 16:32, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Jan Vesely <jan.vesely at rutgers.edu> wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 2017-05-31 at 13:33 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> > > > On 29 May 2017 at 16:33, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > The "ac" functions could also be forked and put into r600 if people
>> > > > > want to preserve the OpenCL support. That would remove the dependency
>> > > > > on "ac".
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> > > I thought amdgpu.a was supposed to be shared by both, is there a way to
>> > >  split off the GCN parts and still have reuse shared code?
>> > > I won't hide it, my intention is to rely on shared code as much as
>> > > possible and force others to care (same strategy with LLVM, but mesa
>> > > does not have a nice regression test suite).
>> >
>> > This shared code doesn't change. You won't gain anything by sharing
>> > it.
>>
>> This one here. Jan/others can you look into Marek's suggestion, as you
>> have time?
>>
>> > And with ROCm OpenCL being out there, the fate of RadeonSI OpenCL
>> > is also uncertain and it's definitely unmaintained.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > > Any objections if we defer this to the person working on r600+OpenCL,
>> > > > or is that a must for the series?
>> > > > I'm slightly worried that a "fix the build" is going into "refactor
>> > > > driver X" :-\
>> > >
>> > > what's wrong with adding an r600g+opencl on radeonsi dependency? if
>> > > it's "not used" enough to be removed, then it should be "not used"
>> > > enough to have non-standard dependency.
>> >
>> > Yeah we can add that dependency.
>> >
>> > There is technically no production quality OpenCL Mesa driver, so the
>> > importance of building OpenCL successfully is kinda moot. Maybe we can
>> > just let it be in the current state with all its build bugs.
>> >
>>
>> If I understood you correctly -> selecting r600+opencl would also
>> build radeonsi?
>> This sounds like a very nasty hack/workaround :-(
>>
>> Marek, what's your final call?
>> Fwiw I'm still behind "drop this code and let anyone interested do a r600 copy".
>
> I don't understand the delete fervor. The code is rarely touched (this
> is the case for most old drivers), because most of the work needed is
> on the LLVM side. Since there is no full time dev interested, it's a
> very slow process.
>
If things did not fail to build I would not come near, let alone
remove any code.

I have zero knowledge of the code in question and HW/time to make it
work I correctly. Since nobody else have come forward with tackling
this properly, I opted for this route.
Yes it's far from perfect, but it's what we currently have :-\

-Emil