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

[Marek Olšák]

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 11:19 AM Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, 4 May 2019 at 04:18, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 1:58 AM Mathias Fröhlich <
> Mathias.Froehlich at gmx.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Good Morning,
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 21:43:08 CEST Marek Olšák wrote:
> >> > BTW, swrast doesn't have to exist on the system. It's not uncommon
> for me
> >> > to have no swrast on my development system.
> >>
> >> Ok. I see. I use swrast regularly to test changes with different
> backend drivers.
> >> Also especially classic swrast as something that is close to the good
> old swtnl
> >> drivers - to catch bad interactions with those.
> >>
> >> Anyhow, with a very old swrast I think you will get test failures.
> >> But else if the system swrast is found in the hopefully not so distant
> future
> >> the tests should even pass - well depends on what Emil now does to get a
> >> better overall swrast behavior.
> >> On a production system with a full set of driver packages I do expect to
> >> find swrast, right? At least on a workstation grade linux distribution.
> >>
> >> I start to see the actual problem for AMD there.
> >> Not your test system at home, but the pro driver that needs to ship
> >> and QA swrast then.
> >>
> >> Anyhow, I do not actually understand the way how we walk all
> >> installed egl driver implementations - including closed drivers -
> finally
> >> and present all those devices. In a perfect world *for the customer*
> >> I could enumerate all devices - including oss i965 and the closed nvidia
> >> bumblebee device - on my laptop for example.
> >>
> >> Means - if that works fine AMD could hook into that mechanism and
> >> provide further devices. Well - in the long term.
> >
> >
> > We include libGL and libEGL along with radeonsi in our binary driver
> installer. We probably don't include swrast, but I'm not 100% sure.
> >
> The series I just sent out covers everything but the "don't expose the
> software device". It does include a hack which can be toggled to
> achieve that though ;-)
>
> My line of thinking is as follows:
>
> Preamble:
> A software device is only listed when the user requests the full
> device list via QueryDevices and even then, it's the last one in the
> list.
> Thus it's close to impossible to get it "by mistake".
>
> Case A - average Joe:
> Getting Mesa from their distribution - swrast is build and shipped.
>
> Case B - tailored solution like AMDGPU-PRO, Yocto builders or others:
> People doing the platform integration know if swrast will be
> built/available. If listing the software device is not something
> they're interested, the trivial hack can be applied locally.
>
> This seems like a perfectly good middle-ground, don't you agree?
>

Yes, it's OK.

Marek
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20190507/b090fcf4/attachment-0001.html>