On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 10:36, Renato Golin <renato.go...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi Ard, > > I don't have the whole context, but my read of that email is: > > 1. The claim is that "some people had some issues with indeterminate > hardware and indeterminate versions of mesa", however... > 2. He "did run the WebGL CTS suite, but that resulted in some hangs > from the the max-texture-size-equivalent test, and some browser-level > weirdness after some tests where later tests all fail" > > I don't think those two statements are compatible. He can reproduce > lots of failures on his own machine, probably just didn't have time to > investigate all of them in detail. > > Furthermore, he claims the failures are "due to what [he has] to > assume is a browser bug" without any evidence to support it, and later > on claims the driver is fine because "accelerated WebGL [...] in > practice worked just fine (at least in my usage of it)". > > To me, it smells like someone complaining that a broken piece of > software is black-listed and shouldn't have because everyone know it's > broken anyway, but it kinda works, so it's fine. >
I think one of the complaints is that there is a double standard here. > If that's a fair reading, I personally support blacklisting, and I > second Chromium's suggestion to make the driver a first-class citizen > as a way to remove it from the blacklist. > > Who would do such work is a question that, to me, has no easy answer... > > 1. Linaro has no GPU working group and NVidia is not a member, so > working on their drivers, even if open source, if we had the > expertise, would be free lunch. > 2. NVidia doesn't care about OSS drivers (much) because they already > have their own proprietary ones on the platforms they care about. > 3. Arm can't work on OSS NVidia drivers as that would compete with Mali. > > Someone could hire community developers to do that work, or at least > to validate it on Arm and create a list of bugs that need to be fixed, > with more details than just "works for me". Linaro could do the > validation matrix but would have to do it for both Arm and x86, and > then hope the nouveau community would pick up the tab and fix them > all. We'd also have to provide access to hardware for them to test, > etc. > > An alternative crappy solution would be to IFDEF the inclusion in the > blacklist *exclusively* for Arm, given even we still don't care much > about bugs in NVidia+Arm. But that's gotta lose some kudos from > whomever proposes it and will be met with fierce refusal from the > Chromium community. > > The bottom line is: not many people care about nouveau on Arm, given > the only platform that actually uses it today is the Synquacer. > Nouveau is also used on non-PCI NVidia ARM SoCs with integrated graphics. > I may be wrong, there may be a thriving community for NVidia on Arm > out there. If there is, MHO is that we should talk to them instead of > putting pressure on Chrimum to lift the ban. If not, there's no > pressure to be put in the first place. > > If, however, you propose we put pressure on nouveau specifically, for > both Arm and x86, then I think it should come from the other side > (x86) first, and Arm's not a first-class citizen on nouveau anyway. > All in all, we're at the very bottom of the priority stack, there's no > pressure we can put on anything, but Linaro could do the heavy lifting > of validation matrix and help the nouveau community to identify and > validate their fixes. > Thanks Renato _______________________________________________ cross-distro mailing list cross-distro@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-distro
