On 22 June 2015 at 07:56, Michel Dänzer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > In theory the "packager's responsibility" should kick way before that, although this would be a great addition.
-Emil _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
