On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 11:28:40AM +0800, zhoucm1 wrote: > > > On 2019年04月25日 03:22, Eric Anholt wrote: > > "Zhou, David(ChunMing)" <David1.Zhou@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > Will linux be only mesa-linux? I thought linux is an open linux. > > > Which will impact our opengl/amdvlk(MIT open source), not sure Rocm: > > > 1. how to deal with one uapi that opengl/amdvlk needs but mesa dont need? reject? > > > 2. one hw feature that opengl/amdvlk developers work on that but no mesa > > > developers work on, cannot upstream as well? > > I believe these questions are already covered by > > > > "+Other userspace is only admissible if exposing a given feature through OpenGL > > or > > +OpenGL ES would result in a technically unsound design, incomplete driver or > > +an implementation which isn't useful in real world usage." > > > > If OpenGL needs the interface, then you need a Mesa implementation. > > It's time for you to work with the community to build that or get it > > built. Or, in AMD's case, work with the Mesa developers that you > > already employ. > > > > If OpenGL doesn't need it, but Vulkan needs it, then we don't have a > > clear policy in place, and this patch doesn't change that. I would > > personally say that AMDVLK doesn't qualify given that as far as I know > > there is not open review of proposed patches to the project as they're > > being developed. > Can I understand what you mean is, as soon as the stack is openly developed, > then which will be able to drive new UAPI? I think the only clear thing here is that the answer is complicated, and need to be decided on a case by case basis. That's what I tried to clarify with my patch, but I think there's not enough clearly defined common ground. So it'll stay complicated. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
