On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 04:00:18PM +0200, Gildas Bayard wrote: > 2005/10/27, Denis Oliver Kropp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Quoting Gildas Bayard: > > > I'm not sure I understood the relationship between DirectFBGL and Mesa. > > > Am I correct if I say: > > > - classic Linux openGL program uses Mesa which uses X which uses DRI > > > for hardware acceleration > > > - DirectFBGL wants openGL hardware acceleration without X, so > > > DirectFBGL uses Mesa-embedded which is a modified version a Mesa which > > > uses DirectFB instead of X > > > But is Mesa-embedded using DRI? > > > > DirectFBGL uses Mesa-embedded which uses DRI. > > > > Mesa-embedded is neither DirectFB specific nor using it. > But I don't understand: doesn't mesa need to draw stuff using some > kind of widgets DirectFB provides? I though DirectFB was a equivalent > to Xlib (and much more as it seems) > How are Mesa calculation displayed then? > > Does this mean that since mesa-embedded only support Matrox (and I > have an intel integrated chipset) I could use the standard Mesa with > DirectFBGL instead?
Claudio sent some "odd" DirectFBGL patches to Mesa at some point. AFAIK they are now included in the official Mesa source code. I _think_ it's basically similar to the original DirectFBGL ie. software rendering only and it's included as a separate Mesa driver like dri, x11, fbdev, dos, ggi etc. DirectFBGL with the embedded-2-branch took another approach using a (customized) Mesa dri driver. I think this approach would be a better choice even for pure software rendering as that would allow the DirectFBGL interface code to be kept out of the Mesa and the hardware vs. software rendering would be a matter of selecting the correct Mesa dri driver. There are already two software only dri drivers in the Mesa tree fb_dri and x11_dri. AFAICS fb_dri is agnostic about the underlying hardware or software so it should theoretically be useful for DirectFBGL software rendering with only minimal modifications. The bigger problem now is that embedded-2-branch is very old. It's based on Mesa 5.x whereas current Mesa is 6.x. Someone would have to see how much of the original changes would be required to make DirectFBGL work with 6.x. It might even make sense to take the fb_dri approach as it would limit the changes to Mesa itself and it would be easier to send them upstream. -- Ville Syrjälä [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sci.fi/~syrjala/ _______________________________________________ directfb-users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.directfb.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/directfb-users
