<html><head></head><body><div>On Mon, 2018-05-28 at 09:11 +0200, Olivier Fourdan wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hey Luyde,<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Lyude Paul <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lyude@redhat.com" target="_blank">lyude@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><br> NAK, unfortunately this check isn't going to be enough, see:<br> <br> 2018-05-24 15:44:34 jadahl Lyude: you can also look at the globals sent<br> out by the compositor<br> 2018-05-24 15:44:52 Lyude jadahl: you mean the wl interfaces<br> 2018-05-24 15:45:30 jadahl yes<br> 2018-05-24 15:46:22 -- manuelschneid3r is now known as manuels<br> 2018-05-24 15:51:02 -- manuels is now known as manuelschneid3r<br> 2018-05-24 15:52:04 Lyude jadahl: hm. i thought that hadn't been working<br> before, but something must have changed because it appears to work now<br> 2018-05-24 15:53:03 jadahl checking for the EGL extension alone might not<br> be enough anyhow, in case the compositor doesn't actually support anything on<br> the other end<br> <br> I'm going to try to come up with a patch that uses this approach today, and I<br> will include you in the CC for it<br></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">[Adding Jonas in CC]</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Great thanks for the reviews!</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I agree that we need to check for the protocol availability of course, yet it doesn't mean we should ditch this patch.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">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.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">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.<br></div></div></blockquote><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Anyway:</div><div>Reviewed-by: Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Hence, I think we should still consider this patch.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Cheers,</div><div class="gmail_extra">Olivier<br></div></div> </blockquote><div><span><pre>-- <br></pre><div style="width: 78ch;">Cheers,</div><div style="width: 78ch;"> Lyude Paul</div></span></div></body></html>