One more comment: Could you make a big WIP MR with the whole driver to act as a pointer to the branch for now? Then it can be the thing that gets merged once the stuff in a and b land.
--Jason On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:10 PM Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote: > > Good work, all! I'm super-happy to see another Vulkan driver land in Mesa. > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 8:52 AM apinheiro <apinhe...@igalia.com> wrote: > > Our development branch is ~525 patches on top of master, categorized as > > follows: > > a) Patches that touch common Mesa infrastructure (NIR, Vulkan WSI, > > Meson, etc): ~5 patches. > > b) Patches that touch common Broadcom infrastructure under src/broadcom > > (V3D backend compiler mostly): ~20 patches > > c) Patches that are independent and specific to the V3D Vulkan driver > > (under src/broadcom/vulkan): ~500 patches. > > > > Since we are talking about a very large amount of patches, we are expecting > > that we can merge most of them without a review, particularly those in c) > > that implement the bulk of the Vulkan driver. > > I think that's fine. > > > The patches in b) are mostly about extending our compiler backend to > > support Vulkan intrinsics and requirements as well a a few more general > > fixes or improvements. Our plan is to at least have someone in our team > > review them internally and grant Rbs, I think the only other person who > > might want to review these would be Eric if he has the time and is > > interested in doing so. We have sent some of these for early review [1][2] > > when we found they were more generic fixes or improvements to the compiler, > > but we might not want to do this for each and every one of them unless we > > see there is interest in reviewing them separately. > > An ACK from Eric or someone other v3d devs would be good. Not my > area, though, so I'll let others talk. > > > For the patches in a) we would like to at least get an Ack from other Mesa > > devs. They are mostly very simple things that just add an option to a NIR > > pass or a new intrinsic for use in our driver backend, so maybe it is not > > needed to create dedicated MRs and it is fine to just ping specific Mesa > > devs for reviews on those patches when we propose the large MR for the bulk > > of the driver. We did send one of these as an RFC some time ago [3] and it > > would be nice to get some more feedback there if possible. > > I'd definitely like to see the patches in a) get real review. I don't > know how many MRs you want to make there; do what makes sense. > > > Does all this sound sensible? > > Yup. > > --Jason _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
