On 20.06.2015 07:32, Dave Airlie wrote: >> >>> at which point you'd want to continue >>> the versioning from the mesa point to avoid epochs. So I don't >>> take your argument, the API version is what we ship in the gbm.pc >>> file, compatible implementations should make the same API changes >>> in their same versions. >>> >> Other companies may use different versionning schemes (YYYY/MM/DD) and >> which they cannot shift away from for whatever reason. Based on that >> (plus the libEGL <> libgbm ABI mentioned above) sticking with "use >> mesa's version" seems a bit impossible/narrow minded imho. I think we >> can all agree things are less than perfect and checking the version in >> the pc file is not a good idea. > > gbm.pc is the gbm API version number. It isn't the Mesa version number, > it just happens at the moment they are the same thing because nobody > has split them, and because there isn't much value to Mesa in doing so. > > Other projects implementing the gbm API need to use the same version > number for their gbm.pc file. it sucks but otherwise they are not API > compatible. This doesn't mean they cannot use other versioning schemes > for their project, but their gbm.pc needs to be compatible with Mesa. > > But yes checking the version sucks and I'd rather not do it, but it doesn't > escape the fact that other gbm implementations are currently doing it > wrong if they want to be API compatible.
I think one fundamental issue is that we're trying to determine the GBM runtime ABI from compile time constants. One possible solution might be to add something like enum gbm_bo_flags gbm_bo_get_supported_flags(struct gbm_device *gbm) which returns the mask of flags supported by the implementation. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
