On Wednesday 2012-10-24 13:51, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > >>A few folks around me, and myself included, have pondered... >> >>It would seem that wayland and its possible compositors all require >>3D support, which may require, if no accelerating GPU is installed, >>the use of software rendering when doing purely "2D workloads", >>such as libreoffice - xterms - and simple web page browsing,[...] > >what issues do you have in mind, exactly? That Wayland is not at all >usable without a performant GPU (software GL considered too slow or >power-hungry)?
That Wayland may be slower than what we have today, especially in cases with sufficiently dumb framebuffers. For example, within an Xvnc session, `mplayer -vo gl` takes up so much more CPU time than `mplayer -vo x11`. Clearly that is due to software GL rendering, got no problem with that. But I can switch to -vo x11 if I want. With Wayland/Weston, I do not see any such "disable GL" command line option. The pixman renderer may resolve that worry.. >A Pixman-based software renderer for Weston has been talked about in >passing several times, that it would be good to have. No-one just got >around to it yet, AFAIK. It could also allow to run Weston on legacy >(dumb) framebuffers. The GLESv2 renderer has been somewhat separated >from the compositor core, but is not a clean cut yet. > >If we start waving our hands very hard, I could foresee dynamic >switching between software and hardware based renderers, on-demand, >coupled with multi-GPU-support. Though if any client uses EGL, >I don't know how you could switch to a software renderer in the server. Dynamic switching is not that much required (for me, at least). _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
