Re: [Mesa-dev] Vulkan extensions

2017-09-20 Thread Romain Failliot
2017-09-14 19:19 GMT-04:00 Bas Nieuwenhuizen : > Also you can implement 0% of the feature list and still be vulkan 1.0 > compliant ;) > Oh... is that so? Thanks for all your answers, I apparently didn't understand what "being Vulkan 1.0" meant ;) So if I understand

Re: [Mesa-dev] Vulkan extensions

2017-09-20 Thread Romain Failliot
I could, but for now I'll stick to what features.txt tells me, it's easier and more doable considering the time I can invest in mesamatrix. But I think, in the future, users might be interested in knowing which of the extensions are implemented in each driver. Especially since it doesn't seem

Re: [Mesa-dev] Vulkan extensions

2017-09-20 Thread Romain Failliot
Le 14 sept. 2017 6:11 PM, "Bas Nieuwenhuizen" a écrit : For vulkan, because 1.0 is the initial version, there are no extensions to implement to get to that version, so having an extensions list would be nonsensical. I don't think it is nonsensical, say the nouveau

Re: [Mesa-dev] Vulkan extensions

2017-09-17 Thread Mike Lothian
Maybe you could use the hardware feature list and have an extra option of unsupported, for the hardware that cannot do that feature and not include that in the percentages On Fri, 15 Sep 2017, 12:19 am Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Dave

Re: [Mesa-dev] Vulkan extensions

2017-09-15 Thread Bas Nieuwenhuizen
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:31 AM, Romain Failliot wrote: > 2017-09-14 19:19 GMT-04:00 Bas Nieuwenhuizen : >> >> Also you can implement 0% of the feature list and still be vulkan 1.0 >> compliant ;) > > > Oh... is that so? > Thanks for all your

Re: [Mesa-dev] Vulkan extensions

2017-09-14 Thread Bas Nieuwenhuizen
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Dave Airlie wrote: > On 15 September 2017 at 09:12, Jordan Justen > wrote: >> On 2017-09-14 15:36:10, Romain Failliot wrote: >>> Le 14 sept. 2017 6:11 PM, "Bas Nieuwenhuizen" a >>> écrit :

Re: [Mesa-dev] Vulkan extensions

2017-09-14 Thread Bas Nieuwenhuizen
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Dave Airlie wrote: > On 15 September 2017 at 09:12, Jordan Justen > wrote: >> On 2017-09-14 15:36:10, Romain Failliot wrote: >>> Le 14 sept. 2017 6:11 PM, "Bas Nieuwenhuizen" a >>> écrit :

Re: [Mesa-dev] Vulkan extensions

2017-09-14 Thread Dave Airlie
On 15 September 2017 at 09:12, Jordan Justen wrote: > On 2017-09-14 15:36:10, Romain Failliot wrote: >> Le 14 sept. 2017 6:11 PM, "Bas Nieuwenhuizen" a >> écrit : >> >> > For vulkan, because 1.0 is the initial version, there are no >> >

Re: [Mesa-dev] Vulkan extensions

2017-09-14 Thread Jordan Justen
On 2017-09-14 15:36:10, Romain Failliot wrote: > Le 14 sept. 2017 6:11 PM, "Bas Nieuwenhuizen" a > écrit : > > > For vulkan, because 1.0 is the initial version, there are no > > extensions to implement to get to that version, so having an > > extensions list would be

Re: [Mesa-dev] Vulkan extensions

2017-09-14 Thread Bas Nieuwenhuizen
So AFAIK we always put the extensions there that we need to implement to be able to claim that version, or that is my understanding for GL at least. For vulkan, because 1.0 is the initial version, there are no extensions to implement to get to that version, so having an extensions list would be

[Mesa-dev] Vulkan extensions

2017-09-14 Thread Romain Failliot
Hi! I'm working on exposing the vulkan information recently added in features.txt in mesamatrix.net, but there is no extension list under "Vulkan 1.0 - all DONE: anv, radv" There is a couple of command lines in the commit message though: