4 ms·
Yes, the picture kinda confirms my suspicion. Looking at this https://github.com/michaelforney/wld/blob/master/intel/i965_pci_ids.h https://github.com/michaelfo
by cm3 10y ago
Yes, the picture kinda confirms my suspicion. Looking at this https://github.com/michaelforney/wld/blob/master/intel/i965_pci_ids.h https://github.com/michaelforney/wld/blob/master/intel/i965_... you have to wonder how much device-specific stuff one has to implement now when targeting Wayland and if that's avoidable or why libwayland doesn't have libwayland-intel etc?
- ZenoArrow 10y agoBy the looks of that header file, the i965 driver covers multiple different devices, I'm guessing it's using those values to enumerate a list of the Intel CPUs that the driver works with. In terms of Wayland, I would suspect that it isn't necessary to have anything vendor specific, the whole point of targeting an abstraction layer like the DRI is to eliminate the need to cater for differences in devices.
- pritambaral 10y agoFWIU, drivers don't have to specifically support Wayland. As long as they support Khronos's EGL spec, wayland will run on those drivers. EGL is sort of a cross-platform spec for window managers to work with graphics cards.
- cm3 10y agoSo is it just that the APIs are not there yet which motivated wld to talk directly to Intel's DRM?
- pritambaral 10y agoI doubt that. libdrm should have been enough, but this was about two years ago, when Wayland wasn't ready. I don't know much about how wld is using libdrm_intel, and I don't think I'll be much the wiser even if I read the code. Maybe ask the author.