Dear Damian,
I wasn't aware of the versioned .so problem.
Thanks for enlightening me with such helpful info.
It seems opengl-es-virtual-drv is the better option at this point.
It would be great if people actively participating in Mesa development would
give us some feedback about this.
Maybe they have some ideas as well.
Best regards,
Sangwon Ha
------- Original Message -------
Sender : Damian Hobson-Garcia<[email protected]>
Date : 2014-07-25 12:43 (GMT+09:00)
Title : Re: [Dev] Building platform image with Mesa or Virtual driver in Tizen 3.0
Hi Sangwon,
On 2014-07-25 12:10 PM, 하상원 wrote:
> Hi Damian,
>
> I don't think all drivers being supported thru Mesa is a good idea.
>
> There are probably more GPU vendors who don't provide Mesa compatible drivers.
I agree 100%
>
> Anyway, I think there're two sides to consider: build-time and runtime requirements.
>
> For build-time, opengl-es-virtual-drv seems to be enough and being very lightweight,
>
> it wouldn't need any upkeep in terms of bugs and fixes.
I agree here too.
>
> Mesa could also be used during build time instead of the opegl-es-virtual-drv.
Yes and no, I think. There is the minor problem that the Mesa drivers
provide a versioned libGLESv2.so.2, which all of the built packages will
link to. This means that if I want to install a driver (such as Mali or
SGX) after the fact, I have to provide libGLESv2.so.2 to overwrite the
Mesa driver. If Mesa changes its version number for some reason, now the
Mali and SGX drivers must update their names as well.
opegl-es-virtual-drv is nice because it is not versioned, so as long as
there is a libGLESv2.so (or a link of that name) in the non floss
drivers, everything works.
>
> As for the glesv2 issue, we'll look into it and see if we can provide a nice
> solution.
Thank you.
Damian
|
|
|
HA, SANGWON, Ph.D. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. TEL: +82-31-279-1091 |
|
|
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
