GLVND doesn't respond to DRI_PRIME (and probably shouldn't, since that's
very driver-specific), but it has an environment variable that you can
use to override which vendor library it selects.
That's entirely on the client side, so whatever driver to tell it to use
still needs to be able to talk to the server.
-Kyle
On 12/27/2016 07:06 PM, Yu, Qiang wrote:
Yes, mesa can handle DRI_PRIME alone. But my use case is:
1. PRIME GPU (iGPU) use mesa libGL
2. Secondary GPU (dGPU) use close source libGL
If this can be done, we can use dynamic GPU offload in hybrid GPU platforms,
currently we have to switch between GPUs statically (change xorg.conf).
When DRI2, secondary GPU has a GPUScreen on the xserver side which can
be used to obtain vendor info (although not implemented). But DRI3, client
just do offload when DRI_PRIME=1 is set without inform xserver.
The only method I can think of is using a config file for GLVND which records
the
secondary GPU's vendor to use when DRI_PRIME is set like:
<pci id> <vendor>
What's your opinion?
Regards,
Qiang
________________________________________
From: Kyle Brenneman <kbrenne...@nvidia.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 1:05:50 AM
To: Yu, Qiang; Adam Jackson; Emil Velikov; Michel Dänzer
Cc: ML xorg-devel
Subject: Re: Xorg glx module: GLVND, EGL, or ... ?
Is DRI_PRIME handled within the Mesa?
If so, then no support from GLVND is needed. The GLVND libraries would
simply dispatch any function calls to Mesa, which in turn would handle
those calls the same way it would in a non-GLVND system.
-Kyle
On 12/23/2016 07:31 PM, Yu, Qiang wrote:
Hi guys,
Does GLVND support DRI_PRIME=1? If the secondary GPU uses different
libGL than primary GPU, how GLVND get the vendor to use?
Regards,
Qiang
________________________________________
From: Adam Jackson <a...@redhat.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 6:02:18 AM
To: Emil Velikov; Michel Dänzer
Cc: Kyle Brenneman; Yu, Qiang; ML xorg-devel
Subject: Re: Xorg glx module: GLVND, EGL, or ... ?
On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 16:08 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
Example:
Would happen if we one calls glXMakeCurrent which internally goes down
to eglMakeCurrent ? Are we going to clash since (iirc) one is not
allowed to do both on the same GL ctx ?
No, for the same reason this already isn't a problem. If you
glXMakeCurrent an indirect context, the X server does not itself call
glXMakeCurrent. All it does is record the client's binding. Only when
we go do to actual indirect rendering (or mutate context state) does
libglx actually make that context "current". That context is a tuple of
the protocol state and a DRI driver context; it could just as easily be
an EGL context instead of DRI.
- ajax
_______________________________________________
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
