On Monday, July 15, 2013, Rob Clark <robdclark(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Peter Robinson
<pbrobinson(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Brendan Conoboy
<blc(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 07/11/2013 10:41 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>>
>>> Kernel, glibc, all the core library stacks. And I would argue that yes,
>>> this
>>> *includes* libGL. So llvmpipe needs fixed, outside of any desktops.
>>> Should
>>> we define the core functionality better? Probably.
>>
>>
>> I would argue that it does not include libGL because it's not a
requirement
>> for headless deployment scenarios. Why would you argue for
it?
>
> I would argue that it's nothing to do with headless scenarios but more
> that the vast majority of ARM GPUs support GL-ES which is a
> sub/different standard of desktop GL (sorry, I'm not a graphics
> programming expert!) and the support for that in mesa and in general
> is terrible. There was a proposal to refactor mesa and when I spoke to
> ajax (I think, sorry ajax if it wasn't you) or someone it wasn't
> basically moving forward upstream at the moment. I'm not sure who
> originally was driving this (my google fu doesn't give me the mailing
> list proposal ATM).
It is getting a bit off the topic, but this it isn't really a problem
with mesa. But rather that we have non-gallium closed src drivers
from the GPU vendors in the ARM space, which only support GLES. And
most/all of the desktop stuff packaged in fedora (in particular,
gnome-shell) is requiring GL.
This is incorrect. It uses cogl which has a gles renderer wich is supposed
Tod work. If it does not that is just a bug that we should fix.