Xorg glx module: GLVND, EGL, or ... ?

[Kyle Brenneman]

Is DRI_PRIME handled within the Mesa?

If so, then no support from GLVND is needed. The GLVND libraries would 
simply dispatch any function calls to Mesa, which in turn would handle 
those calls the same way it would in a non-GLVND system.

-Kyle

On 12/23/2016 07:31 PM, Yu, Qiang wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Does GLVND support DRI_PRIME=1? If the secondary GPU uses different
> libGL than primary GPU, how GLVND get the vendor to use?
>
> Regards,
> Qiang
> ________________________________________
> From: Adam Jackson <ajax at redhat.com>
> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 6:02:18 AM
> To: Emil Velikov; Michel Dänzer
> Cc: Kyle Brenneman; Yu, Qiang; ML xorg-devel
> Subject: Re: Xorg glx module: GLVND, EGL, or ... ?
>
> On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 16:08 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
>
>> Example:
>> Would happen if we one calls glXMakeCurrent which internally goes down
>> to eglMakeCurrent ? Are we going to clash since (iirc) one is not
>> allowed to do both on the same GL ctx ?
> No, for the same reason this already isn't a problem. If you
> glXMakeCurrent an indirect context, the X server does not itself call
> glXMakeCurrent. All it does is record the client's binding. Only when
> we go do to actual indirect rendering (or mutate context state) does
> libglx actually make that context "current". That context is a tuple of
> the protocol state and a DRI driver context; it could just as easily be
> an EGL context instead of DRI.
>
> - ajax