Hi all, So I'll get right to the crux of this; In summary the consensus would then be to drop ilo?
If so, I am not sure of this communities procedure? However, if it helps the patch is here: https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~funfunctor/mesa/log/?h=eol-ilo Kind Regards, Edward. On 12/07/2016 07:08 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 6 December 2016 at 03:16, Edward O'Callaghan >>>>> <funfunc...@folklore1984.net> wrote: >>>>>> This patch is to potentially remove ourself from the maintaince >>>>>> burden of the ilo driver that appears to now be essentially >>>>>> unmaintained? >>>>>> >>>>>> I am not sure of our policy here or if there are too many >>>>>> users so this patch is really only to gauge a response of >>>>>> how folks feel? >>>>>> >>>>> Surely you want to CC the core/sole developer of the driver when >>>>> considering its removal. >>>>> Maybe mailman was "nice" and hid his email in the header ;-) >>>>> >>>>> Either way adding Chia-I Wu to the list. >>>>> >>>>> -Emil >>>>> P.S. Not sure/sold how much of an actual burden the driver is, yet I >>>>> don't make serious gallium infra changes. >>>> >>>> really hasn't been a problem for me.. >>>> >>>> That said, it would be nice if someday someone wired this up to use >>>> glsl_to_nir path in gallium and re-used i965's nir backend. I think >>>> that would make ilo somewhat more interesting.. >>> >>> >>> We had a bit of a chat about this on IRC and what I told Ilia there was that >>> the more interesting thing to do, if someone really wanted to do Intel on >>> gallium, would probably be to build a new driver based on ISL, blorp, the >>> i965 compiler, NIR, and genxml. We've made a pretty good driver-building >>> toolbox. Having an almost unmaintained driver that has it's own hand-rolled >>> and inferrior compiler, surface layout, etc. isn't doing much good. >>> >> >> yeah, reusing the other bits would be nice too, and hopefully would be >> the long term goal if someone where to spend time on this.. I guess >> I'd prefer a more incremental approach of converting parts one by one >> if I were doing it myself. It's kind of a moot point either way until >> someone has time/motivation to spend on it. >> >> But I've no real objection to dropping ilo until then if others feel >> strongly.. it's still there in git history so it can be resurrected if >> someone wants to convert to reuse other i965 bits incrementally rather >> than starting from scratch. > > As mentioned on IRC, I think the real use-case that ilo could cover > that i965/anv can't (easily) handle is acting as a gallium-nine > backend. (I know someone's working on DX9 over vulkan, but that's > hardly ready, and will never be available on gen6.) > > However at this time, it's not sufficiently functional to handle > gallium-nine, so I don't see any serious downside to dropping it. > > -ilia >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
