On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 7:41 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 October 2016 at 18:21, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 19 October 2016 at 19:31, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 18 October 2016 at 23:00, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> From: Marek Olšák <marek.ol...@amd.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> configure.ac | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
>>>>>> index 12c8165..17dfafd 100644
>>>>>> --- a/configure.ac
>>>>>> +++ b/configure.ac
>>>>>> @@ -2296,35 +2296,52 @@ dnl Gallium helper functions
>>>>>> dnl
>>>>>> gallium_require_llvm() {
>>>>>> if test "x$MESA_LLVM" = x0; then
>>>>>> case "$host" in *gnux32) return;; esac
>>>>>> case "$host_cpu" in
>>>>>> i*86|x86_64|amd64) AC_MSG_ERROR([LLVM is required to build $1
>>>>>> on x86 and x86_64]);;
>>>>>> esac
>>>>>> fi
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -dnl This is for Glamor. Skip this if OpenGL is disabled.
>>>>>> -require_egl_drm() {
>>>>>> +dnl If EGL/X11 or GLX is enabled, make sure they are usable.
>>>>>> +check_glamor_requirements() {
>>>>>
>>>>> With the previous patches you no longer need this, due to the following:
>>>>> - The correct option is the default one
>>>>> - If one is missing libgbm.so, libglamoregl.so will fail to load
>>>>> [with decent commit message]
>>>>> - With recent fix from Chad, we won't advertise the
>>>>> EGL_MESA_platform_gbm extension when EGL is build w/o it.
>>>>> - The interface between DRI loaders and drivers is stable. So one
>>>>> shouldn't need to rebuild EGL/gbm if they're only interested in the
>>>>> latest fixes in the radeonsi driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> Either way, if you really want this please use something like the
>>>>> following:
>>>>>
>>>>> if test x$enable_egl = xyes; then
>>>>> case "$with_egl_platforms" in
>>>>> *drm*)
>>>>> ;;
>>>>> *)
>>>>> AC_MSG_ERROR([--with-egl-platforms=drm is required to build the
>>>>> $1 driver.])
>>>>> ;;
>>>>> esac
>>>>> fi
>>>>>
>>>>> One doesn't need any of the enable_opengl, enable_gbm or alike tests.
>>>>> Furthermore glamor relies on the gbm/drm EGL platform so the x11 check
>>>>> is superfluous.
>>>>
>>>> I think there is some misunderstanding.
>>>>
>>>> OpenGL X11/DRI acceleration is enabled by the build system:
>>>> - for GLX by setting $enable_glx = dri
>>>> - for EGL by setting $with_egl_platforms = *x11*
>>>>
>>>> The following code checks if OpenGL on X11/DRI is enabled:
>>>>
>>>> if test "x$enable_opengl" = xno; then
>>>> return 0
>>>> fi
>>>>
>>>> need_glamor=no
>>>>
>>>> if test "x$enable_glx" = xdri; then # GLX
>>>> need_glamor=yes
>>>> fi
>>>>
>>>> case "$with_egl_platforms" in # EGL
>>>> *x11*)
>>>> need_glamor=yes
>>>> ;;
>>>> esac
>>>>
>>>>
>>> IIRC glamor + glx isn't really an option.
>>
>> That's not what it means. It's not about Glamor. If I rename
>> "need_glamor" to "need_opengl_in_X", will it make more sense? Glamor
>> is a requirement for OpenGL in X (GLX), so in order to support GLX, we
>> need Glamor, thus we need EGL/DRM. That's the dependency chain.
>>
>> To make it clear:
>> - GLX depends on X acceleration.
>> - EGL/X11 also depends on X acceleration.
> Indeed, and people may want the swrast 'acceleration' for GLX and
> radeon one for EGL/X11 and vice-versa.
> Regardless, what gets build and shipped is packaging/distribution decision.
>
>> - X acceleration depends on Glamor.
> Glamor is one way to provide X acceleration.
It's the *only* way to provide X acceleration on radeonsi.
>
>> - Glamor depends on EGL/DRM and GBM.
>>
> Glamor may depend on GBM. Since radeons/mesa drivers rely on
> Glamor/EGL to be GBM aware they need EGL/DRM. The latter already
> depends on GBM so we can drop the enable_gbm check.
BTW, xf86-video-amdgpu also depends on GBM. I think it's the only
vendor-specific DDX that uses GBM. I can remove the check if EGL/DRM
requires GBM already.
>
>> Thus, if you enable GLX or EGL/X11, you also need EGL/DRM and GBM.
>>
>> Is it clear now?
>>
> Guess it's the opposite way - I'm not clear enough :-\
>
> We're enforcing packaging/distribution decisions even if people don't
> need them. We can devote our focus/energy to a) toggle things to sane
> defaults (thanks for that) and b) have comprehensive messages as
> people unintentionally, or not shoot themselves in the foot.
>
> Please ?
OK, I'll give you an entirely different point of view:
If EGL/DRM and EGL/surfaceless are disabled at the same time,
radeonsi_dri.so is unusable. It can't be used by any API or window
system whatsoever. It's a useless binary that can't do anything and
only takes space. Why would anyone want to build that?
EGL/surfaceless enables users to use radeonsi_dri.so without any window system.
EGL/drm enables everything else: X, Wayland, KMS offscreen rendering.
Since it enables X, it indirectly enables everything that works inside
X: OpenGL (GLX, EGL/X11), VDPAU, etc.
I'm gonna simplify the function based on that.
Marek
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
