What do you think about trying to remove all X specific references from the
drivers since the drivers can go into environments like DirectFB which don't
have GLX? The standalone versions already do this. There is only minor usage of
X declarations in the drivers.
The other goal of removing X specific code would be to allow the same binary
drivers to be used in multiple environments such as XFree, DirectFB, or a new
windowing systems. It would be easy to write an SDL wrapper.
I'm currently using this API, I don't care if we change it, I just wanted to
avoid X variables like Display*. This is all checked into mesa
/newtree/src/mesa/drivers/dri/r200. Radeon versions work and I think MGA
works. R128 does not work.
void *__driCreateScreen(struct DRIDriverRec *driver,
struct DRIDriverContextRec *driverContext);
GLboolean r200CreateContext( const __GLcontextModes *glVisual,
__DRIcontextPrivate *driContextPriv,
void *sharedContextPrivate);
GLboolean r200CreateBuffer( __DRIscreenPrivate *driScrnPriv,
__DRIdrawablePrivate *driDrawPriv,
const __GLcontextModes *mesaVis,
GLboolean isPixmap )
int radeonInitContextModes( const DRIDriverContext *ctx,
int *numModes, const __GLcontextModes
**modes)
The only other area is glxextensions. It should be simple to still provide
glxextensions capability but isolate the drivers from X header files.
The standalone version supports a subset GLX interface, it is implemented in
src/glx/mini. This code refers to the X header files to implement GLX.
=====
Jon Smirl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
