On Fri, Dec 21, 2018, 19:16 Marek Olšák <[email protected] wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018, 6:28 PM Kenneth Graunke <[email protected] > wrote: > >> That seems like a reasonable interface to me. >> >> But, I don't think it's backwards compatible. Today, don't state >> trackers set index = 0 and expect all 11 to be returned? We could >> easily change the in-tree state trackers, but not sure about the >> other ones. >> >> We could always encode the index differently, but at that point, I >> wonder if it would be cleaner to just add a new query type like Ilia >> suggested. >> >> Marek, what would you prefer? >> > > Backward compatibility is not required. Gallium is not a stable API. In > tree state trackers can be fixed easily. We shouldn't worry too much about > closed source state trackers. >
Fwiw my take is that while it's fine to change apis around (we do this all the time), we should avoid causing a loss of functionality just because no in-tree state tracker uses it. I think having a forward-looking gallium API greatly facilitated GL 3 and 4 bringup of gallium drivers, even though there wasn't necessarily an in-tree way to access all the functionality at the time. As long as all the previously accessible functionality remains, I think we're fine.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
