Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 0/8] [RFC] improve driconf support for gallium
- Original Message - > On Mit, 2012-04-11 at 08:43 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > On Die, 2012-04-10 at 22:04 +0400, Vadim Girlin wrote: > > > On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 09:56 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 19:32 +0400, Vadim Girlin wrote: > > > > > These patches allow to use driver-specific driconf settings, > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > How does it allow that? The list of supported driconf options > > > > is still > > > > in st/dri, isn't it? > > > > > > Yes, it seems I used the wrong word. The list of options is still > > > the > > > same for all gallium drivers. > > > > > > Anyway, my primary goal with these patches is to handle > > > force_glsl_extensions_warn, to make unigine apps work correctly. > > > The > > > idea about pipe_screen::get_driver_name is more a question than a > > > proposal, probably we can drop it for now. > > > > On second thought, it might still make sense to be able to set > > different > > settings for different Gallium drivers in one drirc file. However, > > I > > wonder if it wouldn't be better to use the DRI driver name (the > > output > > of xdriinfo driver ), i.e. e.g. 'r600' instead of 'r600g'. > > Isn't > > there a discrepancy otherwise between the settings shown by the > > driconf > > GUI and those actually taking effect? > > Which could probably even be handled by st/dri internally, without > the > need for a new driver hook. Yep. Either pipe_screen::get_driver_name is something that has meaning and use beyond linux/driconf, or that bit of info is better stored somewhere with more knowledge about the platform (e.g., target). Jose ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 0/8] [RFC] improve driconf support for gallium
On Mit, 2012-04-11 at 08:43 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Die, 2012-04-10 at 22:04 +0400, Vadim Girlin wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 09:56 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 19:32 +0400, Vadim Girlin wrote: > > > > These patches allow to use driver-specific driconf settings, [...] > > > > > > How does it allow that? The list of supported driconf options is still > > > in st/dri, isn't it? > > > > Yes, it seems I used the wrong word. The list of options is still the > > same for all gallium drivers. > > > > Anyway, my primary goal with these patches is to handle > > force_glsl_extensions_warn, to make unigine apps work correctly. The > > idea about pipe_screen::get_driver_name is more a question than a > > proposal, probably we can drop it for now. > > On second thought, it might still make sense to be able to set different > settings for different Gallium drivers in one drirc file. However, I > wonder if it wouldn't be better to use the DRI driver name (the output > of xdriinfo driver ), i.e. e.g. 'r600' instead of 'r600g'. Isn't > there a discrepancy otherwise between the settings shown by the driconf > GUI and those actually taking effect? Which could probably even be handled by st/dri internally, without the need for a new driver hook. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 0/8] [RFC] improve driconf support for gallium
On Die, 2012-04-10 at 22:04 +0400, Vadim Girlin wrote: > On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 09:56 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 19:32 +0400, Vadim Girlin wrote: > > > These patches allow to use driver-specific driconf settings, [...] > > > > How does it allow that? The list of supported driconf options is still > > in st/dri, isn't it? > > Yes, it seems I used the wrong word. The list of options is still the > same for all gallium drivers. > > Anyway, my primary goal with these patches is to handle > force_glsl_extensions_warn, to make unigine apps work correctly. The > idea about pipe_screen::get_driver_name is more a question than a > proposal, probably we can drop it for now. On second thought, it might still make sense to be able to set different settings for different Gallium drivers in one drirc file. However, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to use the DRI driver name (the output of xdriinfo driver ), i.e. e.g. 'r600' instead of 'r600g'. Isn't there a discrepancy otherwise between the settings shown by the driconf GUI and those actually taking effect? -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 0/8] [RFC] improve driconf support for gallium
On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 10:42 -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote: > On 04/09/2012 08:32 AM, Vadim Girlin wrote: > > These patches allow to use driver-specific driconf settings, and to handle > > these > > options in the state tracker. > > > > It's then used to handle force_glsl_extensions_warn option, so we could use > > it > > e.g. for unigine applications. > > I haven't looked at your series, but if people object to plumbing > driconf into Gallium, another option might be to pull driconf out of DRI > and into core Mesa. As far as I can tell, it really doesn't have > anything to do with DRI at all. Yes, I thought about that too. Though I guess it might require some time for me to do it correctly, but probably I could try if there are no objections. Vadim ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 0/8] [RFC] improve driconf support for gallium
On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 09:56 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 19:32 +0400, Vadim Girlin wrote: > > These patches allow to use driver-specific driconf settings, [...] > > How does it allow that? The list of supported driconf options is still > in st/dri, isn't it? Yes, it seems I used the wrong word. The list of options is still the same for all gallium drivers. Anyway, my primary goal with these patches is to handle force_glsl_extensions_warn, to make unigine apps work correctly. The idea about pipe_screen::get_driver_name is more a question than a proposal, probably we can drop it for now. I don't know much about these areas, so I'm not sure if it's a right way at all. Vadim ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 0/8] [RFC] improve driconf support for gallium
On 04/09/2012 08:32 AM, Vadim Girlin wrote: These patches allow to use driver-specific driconf settings, and to handle these options in the state tracker. It's then used to handle force_glsl_extensions_warn option, so we could use it e.g. for unigine applications. I haven't looked at your series, but if people object to plumbing driconf into Gallium, another option might be to pull driconf out of DRI and into core Mesa. As far as I can tell, it really doesn't have anything to do with DRI at all. ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 0/8] [RFC] improve driconf support for gallium
On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 19:32 +0400, Vadim Girlin wrote: > These patches allow to use driver-specific driconf settings, [...] How does it allow that? The list of supported driconf options is still in st/dri, isn't it? -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
