[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 2/2] egl: add EGL_platform_device support

[Marek Olšák]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 4:39 PM Mathias Fröhlich <Mathias.Froehlich at gmx.net>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 22:23:45 CEST Marek Olšák wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 4:05 PM Mathias Fröhlich <
> Mathias.Froehlich at gmx.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Marek,
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 20:22:15 CEST Marek Olšák wrote:
> > > > I'd like to remove swrast from devices. It doesn't work
> (eglInitialize
> > > > fails) and I don't think I like swrast there. Any objections?
> > >
> > > Yes, how do you guarantee that at least one device can be returned
> > > in any case? Even if no drm device is found?
> > > The egl device query extension guarantees that there is at least one
> > > device available.
> > > Beside that swrast may make sense for itself, that is the reason
> > > the swrast device is there.
> > >
> >
> > If no device can be returned, the extension won't be exposed.
> Yes, I was triggering this solution back in the days. There was (is?) no
> infrastructure to enable
> or disable an egl extension just past initialization or at runtime.
> Finally Emil took the route to add swrast.
>
> The longer I saw the swrast device the better It appeared to me.
> ... from the users point of view.
>
> >    OR
> > If there is at least 1 drm device, swrast won't be in the list.
> >
> > From my perspective, radeonsi is always in the list and I wouldn't like
> > swrast to be in the list if radeonsi is in the list.
>
> I see - at least I think. But really the swrast device is good as is. I
> see plenty use cases for that.
> Having that only present when there is no hardware device makes it less
> useful.
>

How is swrast good? How is swrast useful if you have a supported GPU?

Marek
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20190423/3dfa39a2/attachment-0001.html>