Comment # 12
on bug 92220
from riaasm@yahoo.com
I think option 3 would be the most suitable solution, since this would advertise exactly what the hardware does. I'm not sure if this is practical though, since it seems to me like creating a new GL extension would be a lot of administrative work. But in all fairness, I have no idea what's involved in this. I'm not sure it would be wise to emulate some hardware functionality in software (option 2), mostly because I don't see the need for "faking it". Just let the hardware say what it can and can not do, so the higher-level application can use it appropriately. Also, I have no idea how to do this anyway, so I can't really help with that. I also wanted to mention that the interop specs (https://www.opengl.org/registry/specs/NV/vdpau_interop.txt) seem to indicate that the GL_NV_vdpau_interop extension is actually supposed to be field based, not frame-based. Maybe I'm not reading it correctly or maybe the frame-based solution was added to the implementation. Either way, if the GL extension is really supposed to be field-based, it might even be useful for newer hardware (as well as older hardware) to have a separate GL extension for the frame-based solution (maybe GL_NV_vdpau_interop_frame, with the current one being for field interop only). This way it would match more closely to the specification of each GL extension. For most newer hardware, this means that both GL extensions would be enabled and it would be clear that the hardware supports both field and frame interop.
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
