Reg: AIGLX architecture & it's difference from DRI
mustaf.here at gmail.com
Mon Sep 1 05:24:30 PDT 2008
I was analyzing the Mesa code when i need to build Mesa for DRI using
make linux-dri.I find that there is some interface files e.g.
dri_interface.h using which client program & libGL.so(Mesa-GL) links to
the actual 3D driver(vendor provided <hw>_dri.so).
But as there is no standard API defined for DRI ( e.g. creating
context/drawable etc), so my question is whoever (vendor) implements
their OpenGL implementation for DRI/DRM will they be Mesa
compliant?Otherwise, if my program already links to Mesa, then can i use
vendor's provided dri.so OR, i have to replace Mesa libGL.so with the
vendor provided <hw>_dri.so
From: Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org>
To: Rahaman <mustaf.here at gmail.com>i,
Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied at gmail.com>, xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: Reg: AIGLX architecture & it's difference from DRI
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 14:19:36 +0300
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 02:10:40PM +0530, Rahaman wrote:
> 1>If some one( a vendor) gives me only the OpenGL driver(no DRI/DRM
> functionality) implementation, can i use that and build my DRI/DRM
> modules i.e. Can i write my own dri.so & drm.so and still use the vendor
> provided OpenGL? Excuse me as some of my questions can be abstarct or
> some cases invalid,too as i am new to this area :-(
If you have the source, then yes, you can write a DRI/DRM driver
yourself, given enough time. If you don't have the source, then no.
> 3>Can i get a comparison like pros & cons for both the architecture in
> different context/use cases?
Direct: fast. Indirect: slow.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the xorg