On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 4:00 AM Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 09:38:27 -0400 > Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Those are all valid reasons, but I don't wanna expose swrast for AMD's > > customers. > > Hi Marek, > > is you objection that you will never want to see any software renderer > in the list, or that you don't want to see a software renderer only as > long as it doesn't actually work? > > Why do you not "wanna expose swrast for AMD's customers"? > > Are you talking about swrast specifically or all the software renderers > in Mesa? > > I'm not an AMD customer if you mean someone paying for support rather > than just buying their hardware, so I cannot speak for them. However, I > would be very happy to have a software renderer available to be picked > the same way as any other hardware renderer, so that I can use it in > graphical test suites (a point from Anholt) testing also the EGL glue > in addition to the pixels produced. > > The thing will be run on boxes with AMD GPUs, and in those cases there > must be a way to *not* use the AMD GPU, and use the software renderer > instead when wanted. Not by environment variables or anything hacky > like that, but by deliberately choosing the software renderer in the > program. It will need an EGLSurface too. > > How would this be made to work in the future? > A software renderer could be exposed by adding a new EGL function on top of EGL_EXT_device_base, for example: // EGL_MESA_device_software EGLBoolean eglQuerySoftwareDeviceMESA(EGLDeviceEXT *swdevice); You would get the swrast device from that function instead of eglQueryDevicesEXT. It clearly separates hw and sw devices but keeps everything else the same. Marek
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
