Glucose status/instructions request, (and notes on stale branches)

[Daniel Stone]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 07:24:26PM +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:
> On Oct 18, 07 20:28:45 -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> > I've spoken often about the desire to reduce our driver complexity by
> > looking to GL as a shared rendering API, so I'm on the record as
> > supporting the general plan here, I'd just like to moderate the flux in
> > master to keep things more stable. With Mesa moving to Gallium, it may
> > be reasonable for X to look to Gallium as well, instead of using OpenGL.
> 
> I don't think Gallium is the right way to do, because OpenGL is a well
> standardized API, while Gallium is extremely new and will probably not
> be used by other OpenGL stacks than Mesa. Though this might be not too
> problematic if both NVidia and AMD won't support glucose anyway, but
> will continue to use their own acceleration infrastructure.

Ultimately, the difference is that one requires us to go through another
layer and deal with more complex mappings, whether the other one lets us
do more or less what we want.  If the choice between them comes down to
whether or not to possibly make a worse technical choice in order to
support people who are developing closed drivers, then I'm pretty sure I
know what I'd be going for.

Cheers,
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20071022/8f575288/attachment.pgp>