Those are all valid reasons, but I don't wanna expose swrast for AMD's customers.
Marek On Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 5:45 AM Mathias Fröhlich <mathias.froehl...@gmx.net> wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 02:01:42 CEST Marek Olšák wrote: > > Adam, did you notice my original suggestion "If there is at least 1 drm > > device, swrast won't be in the list."? which means swrast would be in the > > list for your "dumb" GPUs. > > Imagine a box with a low end drm capable hardware chip like you find > sometimes > in server type boxes (intel/matrox...). Otherwise the box is equipped with > lots of cpu > power. This is something that you will find a lot in that major > engineering application > environment. Your application will be glad to find the swrast renderer > that is finally > more capable than the 'GPU' mostly there to drive an administration > console. > You do not want to lock a swrast 'device' (or however you want to call it) > out by > a may be less capable 'console GPU'. > > Beside that having a second type of 'normalized renderer' like Eric was > telling > about is an other one. > > As well as sometimes it may make sense to utilize the GPU > with one set of work and a second GPU with an other set of work in > parallel. > When you only find a single gpu device in one box, you may be glad to find > a swrast device that you can make use of in parallel with the gpu without > the need > to put up different code paths in your application. > > May be I can come up with other cases, but thats the 5 minutes for now ... > > best > > Mathias > > >
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
