Hey Luyde, On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Lyude Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
> > NAK, unfortunately this check isn't going to be enough, see: > > 2018-05-24 15:44:34 jadahl Lyude: you can also look at the globals > sent > out by the compositor > 2018-05-24 15:44:52 Lyude jadahl: you mean the wl interfaces > 2018-05-24 15:45:30 jadahl yes > 2018-05-24 15:46:22 -- manuelschneid3r is now known as manuels > 2018-05-24 15:51:02 -- manuels is now known as manuelschneid3r > 2018-05-24 15:52:04 Lyude jadahl: hm. i thought that hadn't been > working > before, but something must have changed because it appears to work now > 2018-05-24 15:53:03 jadahl checking for the EGL extension alone might > not > be enough anyhow, in case the compositor doesn't actually support anything > on > the other end > > I'm going to try to come up with a patch that uses this approach today, > and I > will include you in the CC for it > [Adding Jonas in CC] Great thanks for the reviews! I agree that we need to check for the protocol availability of course, yet it doesn't mean we should ditch this patch. Imagine (I say imagine, I do not know if that's plausible, nor if it's even possible), some vendor pushing for EGL streams realizing they could as well support GBM in the future, we would end up with both being supported, in which case we should probably still prefer GBM if we were to chose automatically. So, in this scenario, checking for GBM availability to decide whether or not we should enable one or the other backend is still a good thing, independently of the protocol availability. Hence, I think we should still consider this patch. Cheers, Olivier
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
