Hi Lyude, On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Lyude Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-05-28 at 09:11 +0200, Olivier Fourdan wrote: > > [...] > 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. > > Oh! I should have looked closer at the patch, sorry about that-I had > assumed it was checking for the EGLStream interfaces in the way that > halfline had mentioned. > > Anyway: > Reviewed-by: Lyude Paul <[email protected]> > > Thanks! This patch *is* the way Halfline had mentioned, it's useful in the (hypothetical) case where we would have *both* GBM and EGLstreams available, we should prefer GBM if not requested explicitly EGL Streams (from the command line). Also, following Pekka (very good) point that we should not use strstr(), I shall post an updated version of this patch (v3) using epoxy_has_egl_extension() which does exactly what we want, the way we want it. I am therefore not adding your R-b to that new iteration of that patch since it's different. But it's not sufficient, we also need to check for Wayland interfaces availability which is another series that I shall post shortly. Cheers, Olivier
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
