Re: [Mesa-dev] Potentially EOL ilo gallium driver

On 1 February 2017 at 14:21, Edward O'Callaghan wrote: > On 02/02/2017 12:38 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: >> On 1 February 2017 at 12:49, Edward O'Callaghan >> wrote: >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> Chia-I Wu thanks so much for getting back to me on this

Re: [Mesa-dev] Potentially EOL ilo gallium driver

On 02/02/2017 12:38 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: > On 1 February 2017 at 12:49, Edward O'Callaghan > wrote: >> 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

Re: [Mesa-dev] Potentially EOL ilo gallium driver

On 1 February 2017 at 12:49, Edward O'Callaghan wrote: > 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

Re: [Mesa-dev] Potentially EOL ilo gallium driver

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

Re: [Mesa-dev] Potentially EOL ilo gallium driver

On 08/12/16 11:53 AM, Pierre-Loup A. Griffais wrote: > On 12/07/2016 06:13 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote: >> On 08/12/16 09:59 AM, Rob Clark wrote: >>> +author again.. no idea why list keeps loosing extra cc's.. >> >> Mailman removes addresses from Cc which are subscribed to the list and >> have "Avoid

Re: [Mesa-dev] Potentially EOL ilo gallium driver

On 12/07/2016 06:13 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote: On 08/12/16 09:59 AM, Rob Clark wrote: +author again.. no idea why list keeps loosing extra cc's.. Mailman removes addresses from Cc which are subscribed to the list and have "Avoid duplicate copies of messages?" enabled in the list Subscription

Re: [Mesa-dev] Potentially EOL ilo gallium driver

On 08/12/16 09:59 AM, Rob Clark wrote: > +author again.. no idea why list keeps loosing extra cc's.. Mailman removes addresses from Cc which are subscribed to the list and have "Avoid duplicate copies of messages?" enabled in the list Subscription Options. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer

Re: [Mesa-dev] Potentially EOL ilo gallium driver

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

Re: [Mesa-dev] Potentially EOL ilo gallium driver

+author again.. no idea why list keeps loosing extra cc's.. it is kinda annoying.. BR, -R On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 7:28 PM, 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

Re: [Mesa-dev] Potentially EOL ilo gallium driver

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: >>

Re: [Mesa-dev] Potentially EOL ilo gallium driver

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... 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

Re: [Mesa-dev] Potentially EOL ilo gallium driver

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

Re: [Mesa-dev] Potentially EOL ilo gallium driver

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Rob Clark wrote: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Jason Ekstrand wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Rob Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Emil Velikov

Re: [Mesa-dev] Potentially EOL ilo gallium driver

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Rob Clark wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Emil Velikov >> wrote: >> > On 6 December 2016 at 03:16, Edward O'Callaghan >> >

Re: [Mesa-dev] Potentially EOL ilo gallium driver

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Rob Clark wrote: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Emil Velikov > wrote: > > On 6 December 2016 at 03:16, Edward O'Callaghan > > wrote: > >> This patch is to potentially remove ourself

Re: [Mesa-dev] Potentially EOL ilo gallium driver

Alex Deucher writes: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: >> On 6 December 2016 at 03:16, Edward O'Callaghan >> wrote: >>> This patch is to potentially remove ourself from the maintaince >>> burden

Re: [Mesa-dev] Potentially EOL ilo gallium driver

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: > On 6 December 2016 at 03:16, Edward O'Callaghan > wrote: >> This patch is to potentially remove ourself from the maintaince >> burden of the ilo driver that appears to now be essentially

Re: [Mesa-dev] Potentially EOL ilo gallium driver

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: > On 6 December 2016 at 03:16, Edward O'Callaghan > wrote: >> This patch is to potentially remove ourself from the maintaince >> burden of the ilo driver that appears to now be essentially

Re: [Mesa-dev] Potentially EOL ilo gallium driver

On 6 December 2016 at 03:16, Edward O'Callaghan 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

[Mesa-dev] Potentially EOL ilo gallium driver

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? Kind Regards, Edward