On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Henri Verbeet <hverb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7 June 2017 at 21:54, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Samuel Li <samuel...@amd.com> wrote:
>>>> @@ -790,6 +790,15 @@ static const char* r600_get_device_vendor(struct
>>>> pipe_screen* pscreen)
>>>>
>>>> static const char* r600_get_chip_name(struct r600_common_screen *rscreen)
>>>> {
>>>> + const char *mname;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (rscreen->ws->get_chip_name) {
>>>> + mname = rscreen->ws->get_chip_name(rscreen->ws);
>>>> + if (mname != NULL)
>>>> + return mname;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + /* fall back to family names*/
>>>> switch (rscreen->info.family) {
>>>> case CHIP_R600: return "AMD R600";
>>>> case CHIP_RV610: return "AMD RV610";
>
> As someone downstream of this, I have to say I find the "family" names
> much more informative than whatever marketing came up with. More
> importantly however, this commit changes the GL_RENDERER string
> reported to applications, like Wine, for existing GPUs in an
> incompatible way. Since I suspect displaying the "marketing" name is
> important to at least some people at AMD, could I request please
> including the family name as well, as is done by for example lspci?
Yes, if you write the patch with the codename in the existing parentheses. :)
Marek
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
