On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 at 00:22, Faith Ekstrand wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 5:06 PM Gert Wollny wrote:
>> I think with Venus we are more interested in using utility libraries on
>> an as-needed basis. Here, most of the time the Vulkan commands are just
>> serialized according to the Venus
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 5:06 PM Gert Wollny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks, Faith, for bringing this discussion up.
>
> I think with Venus we are more interested in using utility libraries on
> an as-needed basis. Here, most of the time the Vulkan commands are just
> serialized according to the Venus
Hi,
thanks, Faith, for bringing this discussion up.
I think with Venus we are more interested in using utility libraries on
an as-needed basis. Here, most of the time the Vulkan commands are just
serialized according to the Venus protocol and this is then passed to
the host because usually it
On 24/01/2024 18:26, Faith Ekstrand wrote:
> So far, we've been trying to build those components in terms of the
> Vulkan API itself with calls jumping back into the dispatch table to
> try and get inside the driver.
To me, it looks like the "opt-in" approach would still be well-applicable
to
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 8:57 AM Jose Fonseca
wrote:
> > So far, we've been trying to build those components in terms of the
> Vulkan API itself with calls jumping back into the dispatch table to try
> and get inside the driver. This is working but it's getting more and more
> fragile the more
> So far, we've been trying to build those components in terms of the
Vulkan API itself with calls jumping back into the dispatch table to try
and get inside the driver. This is working but it's getting more and more
fragile the more tools we add to that box. A lot of what I want to do with
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 6:57 PM Marek Olšák wrote:
>
> Gallium looks like it was just a copy of DX10, and likely many things were
> known from DX10 in advance before anything started. Vulkanium doesn't have
> anything to draw inspiration from. It's a completely unexplored idea.
I'm not sure if
Gallium looks like it was just a copy of DX10, and likely many things were
known from DX10 in advance before anything started. Vulkanium doesn't have
anything to draw inspiration from. It's a completely unexplored idea.
AMD's PAL is the same idea as Gallium. It's used to implement Vulkan, DX,
I'll agree with Jose about Vulkan being a low-level abstraction, and to me
the "opt-in" way seems like a much more balanced approach to achieving our
goals — not only balanced between the goals themselves (code amount and
time to implement aren't our only criteria to optimize), but also across
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 12:26 PM Zack Rusin wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:27 AM Faith Ekstrand
wrote:
> >
> > Jose,
> >
> > Thanks for your thoughts!
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 4:30 AM Jose Fonseca
wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't know much about the current Vulkan driver internals to
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:27 AM Faith Ekstrand wrote:
>
> Jose,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts!
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 4:30 AM Jose Fonseca
> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know much about the current Vulkan driver internals to have or
> > provide an informed opinion on the path forward, but I'd
Jose,
Thanks for your thoughts!
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 4:30 AM Jose Fonseca wrote:
>
> I don't know much about the current Vulkan driver internals to have or
> provide an informed opinion on the path forward, but I'd like to share my
> backwards looking perspective.
>
> Looking back, Gallium
I don't know much about the current Vulkan driver internals to have or
provide an informed opinion on the path forward, but I'd like to share my
backwards looking perspective.
Looking back, Gallium was two things effectively:
(1) an abstraction layer, that's watertight (as in upper layers
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 7:20 AM Iago Toral wrote:
>
> Hi Faith,
>
> thanks for starting the discussion, we had a bit of an internal chat
> here at Igalia to see where we all stand on this and I am sharing some
> initial thoughts/questions below:
>
> El vie, 19-01-2024 a las 11:01 -0600, Faith
Hi Faith,
thanks for starting the discussion, we had a bit of an internal chat
here at Igalia to see where we all stand on this and I am sharing some
initial thoughts/questions below:
El vie, 19-01-2024 a las 11:01 -0600, Faith Ekstrand escribió:
> Yeah, this one's gonna hit Phoronix...
>
>
Hello Faith and everyfrogy!
I've been developing a new Vulkan driver for Mesa — Terakan, for AMD
TeraScale Evergreen and Northern Islands GPUs — since May of 2023. You can
find it in amd/terascale/vulkan on the Terakan branch of my fork at
Triang3l/mesa. While it currently lacks many of the
On 2024/01/20 2:01, Faith Ekstrand wrote:
We already have several places where we're doing significant layering.
It started with sharing the WSI code
I wish that it be possible to compile WSI implementation as separate
Vulkan layer *.so module instead of hardcoding and duplicating it to
each
On one hand I think it's a great idea. Moving code out of drivers to common
means fixing bugs helps everyone, and implementing new features is the same.
On the other hand, everyone's already got code that works, which means both
a lot of work to switch that code over to common and then the usual
Yeah, this one's gonna hit Phoronix...
When we started writing Vulkan drivers back in the day, there was this
notion that Vulkan was a low-level API that directly targets hardware.
Vulkan drivers were these super thin things that just blasted packets
straight into the hardware. What little code
19 matches
Mail list logo
