Hi Ken, On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org>wrote:
> On 04/16/2013 09:58 AM, Matt Turner wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Chia-I Wu <olva...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> If there is no objection, I'd like to merge it in a day or two. >>> >> >> My only objection is over adding a driver that is explicitly a toy, >> the confusion it will cause users, and the developer time it will >> waste. It wasn't uncommon for a user to waste a nontrivial amount of >> someone's time in #intel-gfx only to discover that they were trying to >> use the (old) i965g driver that no one maintained. >> > > That's very true. > > I wonder, should i965g be built by default? Or should you have to > explicitly request it via --with-gallium-drivers=i965? The thinking is > that the default should be to build the drivers most people want to use. > > We could also make ./configure print out a warning message saying > something like: "The Gallium i965 driver is highly experimental and not > supported by Intel. Intel recommends using the classic driver > (--with-dri-drivers=i965)." > > Those are just ideas. I'm open to discussion. The driver is disabled by default and needs to be enabled via --with-gallium-drivers=i965. I explained why I want the driver merged in my reply to Matt. It looks like the other concern for your team is that the new driver could be confusing. I can imagine that. I wonder if it can be resolved technically. Maybe the same rule can be applied to i915g, if you still get bug reports for it. > > > I think everything Marek said was correct. If you could extend Gallium >> to consume GLSL IR it might actually be an interesting project. >> > > I agree, that would be interesting. It'd definitely make for a more > compelling classic vs. gallium comparison. > > --Ken > -- o...@lunarg.com
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev