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

[Emil Velikov]

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 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?
>>>
>> Can you rip it out of the build system with 1/3 and git rm
>> src/gallium/drivers/ilo (+ winsys) for 2/3.
>> Might what to just keep the diff stat for 2/3 and resolve the off
>> quirk/workaround we have - grep for remaining ilo instances.
>
> Good plan, I did a slightly different order for bisect-ability and
> updated my repo for you to checkout. Please kindly let me know if I
> missed anything.
>
Ideally we'll get a note in the 17.1.0.html relnotes (separate or with 1/3).
There's a hunk in src/gallium/auxiliary/pipe-loader/pipe_loader_drm.c
which should be squashed with 2/3.

With the above sorted please send the lot (manually trimming 3/3 to
only have the diffstat) to the list for final/official ack from Chia-I
and others.

Thanks
Emil
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

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

[Edward O'Callaghan]

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
>> 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?
>>
> Can you rip it out of the build system with 1/3 and git rm
> src/gallium/drivers/ilo (+ winsys) for 2/3.
> Might what to just keep the diff stat for 2/3 and resolve the off
> quirk/workaround we have - grep for remaining ilo instances.

Good plan, I did a slightly different order for bisect-ability and
updated my repo for you to checkout. Please kindly let me know if I
missed anything.

Thanks,
Edward.

> 
> Thanks
> Emil
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

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

[Emil Velikov]

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 :/. 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?
>
Can you rip it out of the build system with 1/3 and git rm
src/gallium/drivers/ilo (+ winsys) for 2/3.
Might what to just keep the diff stat for 2/3 and resolve the off
quirk/workaround we have - grep for remaining ilo instances.

Thanks
Emil
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

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

[Edward O'Callaghan]

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
>  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  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 
 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
>> 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
>

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

[Michel Dänzer]

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 duplicate copies of messages?" enabled in the list
>> Subscription Options.
> 
> As someone who gets email in a different folder, in a different color,
> and with a notification/sound effect when I get an email where I'm
> directly To'ed or Cc'ed, I would recommend disabling that setting :-)

So would I. :)

To clarify, this is a per-subscription setting, not a
mailing-list-global setting (though it's possible that it was enabled by
default for new mesa-dev subscriptions at some point, but that's not the
case now).

Also, at the risk of stating the obvious, it only affects the posts as
distributed by the list, not the original e-mail sent by the poster. So
affected e-mail addresses do receive the original e-mail directly via
Cc, just other list subscribers can't see that, so affected e-mail
addresses will most likely be missing from Cc on follow-ups.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer   |   http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

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

[Pierre-Loup A. Griffais]

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 Options.


As someone who gets email in a different folder, in a different color, 
and with a notification/sound effect when I get an email where I'm 
directly To'ed or Cc'ed, I would recommend disabling that setting :-)





___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

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

[Michel Dänzer]

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   |   http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

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

[Chia-I Wu]

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
 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  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 
>>> 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
> 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
>
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

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

[Rob Clark]

+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 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 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  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 
>> 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
 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

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

[Edward O'Callaghan]

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  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 
>> 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
 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
>>
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

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

[Roland Scheidegger]

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 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  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 
> 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
>>> 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

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

[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  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 
 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
>> 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
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

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

[Ilia Mirkin]

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 
>>> 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
>>> >> 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

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

[Rob Clark]

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
>> >  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.

BR,
-R
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

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

[Jason Ekstrand]

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 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.
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

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

[Eric Anholt]

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 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.
>
> I don't know that there is that much burden.  One could argue that
> pretty much all drivers for old hw are largely unmaintained.  Consider
> the r300 or i915 on the gallium side or radeon or r200 or i915 on the
> classic mesa side.  That said, I don't do that much work in mesa so I
> defer to those that do.

I see users on #dri-devel confused by it regularly.  The driver does
come at a cost, not just to us developers.

It should have never landed, and it should be removed.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

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

[Rob Clark]

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
>> 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..

BR,
-R
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

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

[Alex Deucher]

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
>> 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.

I don't know that there is that much burden.  One could argue that
pretty much all drivers for old hw are largely unmaintained.  Consider
the r300 or i915 on the gallium side or radeon or r200 or i915 on the
classic mesa side.  That said, I don't do that much work in mesa so I
defer to those that do.

Alex
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

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

[Emil Velikov]

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 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.
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

[Mesa-dev] Potentially EOL ilo gallium driver

[Edward O'Callaghan]

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 O'Callaghan (1):
 [PATCH] ilo: EOL unmaintained older gallium intel driver
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev