6 ms·
something was said about it in irc a few days ago. i am not competent enough to paraphrase the reason. so here is the quote from http://pastebin.com/KjRm3be1 ht
by ibotty 14y ago
something was said about it in irc a few days ago. i am not competent enough to paraphrase the reason. so here is the quote from http://pastebin.com/KjRm3be1 http://pastebin.com/KjRm3be1
00:15 <Prf_Jakob> RAOF: why do you guys want server-allocated buffers?
00:15 <RAOF> Prf_Jakob: Mostly arm damage, there.
00:15 <Prf_Jakob> RAOF: so thats whats its really about then? Closed source drivers?
00:16 <RAOF> No - arm hardware (apparently) has insane constraints that make server allocation more attractive.
00:16 <RAOF> eg - you have at most 6 buffers that are framebuffer-compatible.
00:16 <krh> we have those GPUs at intel too
00:17 <krh> weston runs on those
(note that daniel stone said:
00:35 <daniels> RAOF: fwiw, i've got a wayland backend for arm hardware which does server-side allocation right now. didn't require one single change to any of the clients, or even compositors. it's all internal to the egl stack.
)
- zanny 14y agoI have a bad feeling this G+ post is about to be ripped apart as badly as the initial wiki debacle. I wonder when people will realize, though, that as Canonical tries to justify itself on technical merits and having to backpedal every time, their answer of "we want to control it so we can move it and change it as we want to without having to wait for consensus or forking" is not good, but legitimate.