Hi guys, Chia-I Wu thanks so much for getting back to me on this and I think your right that Vk is the future - indeed the history was a little bit of shame but I guess thats the nature of these things :/. I rebased the dropping patch here
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~funfunctor/mesa/log/?h=eol-ilo Maybe I get your Rb or someone else`s here to go though with this? Kindly, Edward. On 12/08/2016 12:49 PM, Chia-I Wu wrote: > Hi all, > > Sorry for the slow response. I think it is fine to drop the driver :( > > Not because the driver is currently unmaintained, which is very true > and is a very good reason, but that there is now a Intel Vulkan > driver. Vulkan is somewhat as low-level as Gallium is (or even > lower-level). The driver has most things I like to see as well (low > CPU overhead, minimal/predictable heap allocation, generated register > descriptions, etc.). Sorry for the confusions and burdens it bring to > others, and thanks to the few individuals/groups who find it useful > for their needs at various times. > > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Edward O'Callaghan > <funfunc...@folklore1984.net> wrote: >> >> >> On 12/08/2016 11:28 AM, Roland Scheidegger wrote: >>> I haven't seen the driver author's opinion on this yet, so it's probably >>> fair to give him some more time to answer. It's not like this is really >>> urgent... >> >> Absolutely! >> >>> >>> Roland >>> >>> Am 08.12.2016 um 01:11 schrieb Edward O'Callaghan: >>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mesa-dev mailing list >>>> mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org >>>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev >>>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mesa-dev mailing list >> mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev >>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
