I don't necessarily have an opinion either way, but do note that since VGEM isn't here yet, this change will break using Xwayland under a free VM. We should fall back to wl_shm in any case.
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Daniel Stone <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10 February 2016 at 17:08, Kristian Høgsberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Emil Velikov <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On 5 February 2016 at 08:42, Pekka Paalanen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> umm, do we really want to add even more uses of the Mesa-private wl_drm >>>> protocol outside of Mesa? Though it seems that ship sailed a long time >>>> ago. >>>> >>>> Should we just bite the bullet, and have Mesa install drm.xml for >>>> public consumption? Or move drm.xml to wayland-protocols.git? >>>> >>>> I thought all that was a Bad Idea(tm). >>>> >>> If we consider that distributing the protocol for public consumption >>> is OK, please use wayland-protocols.git. Keeping it in mesa will lead >>> to nasty circular dependencies. >> >> I think we should. It's pretty much the equivalent of dri2proto and >> it's useful for projects such as libva as well. > > Why not a stabliised zlinux_dmabuf instead? The only thing I can > really say against it is that it lacks FB modifier support, but, well, > so does wl_drm (and gbm, which means you can't extract multi-plane > buffers to overlays, or particularly sensibly to > non-TEXTURE_EXTERNAL_OES GL ...). > > Cheers, > Daniel > _______________________________________________ > [email protected]: X.Org development > Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel > Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel -- Jasper _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
