On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 20:10:15 +0200 Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > There's also the possibility of writing up a drm-render DDX to handle > these 2D blitters that can make things a lot faster when running a > desktop environment. As for wayland, well, I don't really know what to > think. I was under the impression that it relies on GL for 2D > operations, but am really not sure how true that actually is. Hi Paul, Wayland does not rely on anything really, it does not even have any rendering commands, and is completely agnostic to how applications or display servers might be drawing things. Wayland (protocol) does care about buffer types and fences though, since those are the things passed between applications and servers. In a Wayland architecture, each display server (called a Wayland compositor, corresponding to Xorg + window manager + compositing manager) uses whatever they want to use for putting the screen contents together. OpenGL is a popular choice, yes, but they may also use Vulkan, Pixman, Cairo, Skia, DRM KMS planes, and whatnot or a mix of any. Sometimes it may so happen that the display server does not need to render at all, the display hardware can realize the screen contents through e.g. KMS planes. Writing a hardware specific driver (like a DDX for Xorg) for one display server (or a display server library like wlroots or libweston) is no longer reasonable. You would have to do it on so many display server projects. What really makes it infeasible is the hardware-specific aspect. People would have to write a driver for every display server project for every hardware model. That's just not feasible today. Some display server projects even refuse to take hardware-specific code upstream, because keeping it working has a high cost and only very few people can test it. The only way as I see that you could have Wayland compositors at large take advantage of 2D hardware units is to come up with the common userspace API in the sense similar to Vulkan or OpenGL, so that each display server would only need to support the API, and the API implementation would handle the hardware-specific parts. OpenWF by Khronos may have been the most serious effort in that, good luck finding any users or implementations today. Although maybe Android's hwcomposer could be the next one. However, if someone is doing a special Wayland compositor to be used on specific hardware, they can of course use whatever to put the screen contents together in a downstream fork. Wayland does not restrict that in any way, not even by buffer or fence types because you can extend Wayland to deal with anything you need, as long as you also modify the apps or toolkits to do it too. The limitations are really more political and practical if you aim for upstream and wide-spread use of 2D hardware blocks. Thanks, pq
Attachment:
pgp8gBUYqT1Bs.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
