[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] gpu/docs: Clarify what userspace means for gl

[Daniel Vetter]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 11:28:40AM +0800, zhoucm1 wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2019年04月25日 03:22, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > "Zhou, David(ChunMing)" <David1.Zhou at amd.com> writes:
> > 
> > > Will linux be only mesa-linux? I thought linux is an  open linux.
> > > Which will impact our opengl/amdvlk(MIT open source), not sure Rocm:
> > > 1. how to deal with one uapi that opengl/amdvlk needs but mesa dont need? reject?
> > > 2. one hw feature that opengl/amdvlk developers work on that but no mesa
> > > developers work on, cannot upstream as well?
> > I believe these questions are already covered by
> > 
> > "+Other userspace is only admissible if exposing a given feature through OpenGL
> > or
> > +OpenGL ES would result in a technically unsound design, incomplete driver or
> > +an implementation which isn't useful in real world usage."
> > 
> > If OpenGL needs the interface, then you need a Mesa implementation.
> > It's time for you to work with the community to build that or get it
> > built.  Or, in AMD's case, work with the Mesa developers that you
> > already employ.
> > 
> > If OpenGL doesn't need it, but Vulkan needs it, then we don't have a
> > clear policy in place, and this patch doesn't change that.  I would
> > personally say that AMDVLK doesn't qualify given that as far as I know
> > there is not open review of proposed patches to the project as they're
> > being developed.
> Can I understand what you mean is, as soon as the stack is openly developed,
> then which will be able to drive new UAPI?

I think the only clear thing here is that the answer is complicated, and
need to be decided on a case by case basis. That's what I tried to clarify
with my patch, but I think there's not enough clearly defined common
ground. So it'll stay complicated.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch