Re: PRT support for amdgpu

From: "Nicolai Hähnle" <nhaehnle-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: "Dave Airlie" <airlied-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	"Christian König"
	<deathsimple-ANTagKRnAhcb1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "Bridgman, John" <John.Bridgman-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>,
	amd-gfx mailing list
	<amd-gfx-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org>,
	Bas Nieuwenhuizen
	<bas-dldO88ZXqoXqqjsSq9zF6IRWq/SkRNHw@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: PRT support for amdgpu
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:18:07 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <720067e3-c786-0af0-aec6-dfd1f41db378@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPM=9tzUNgK5MHVBaMzVsn-z=Pn-nSBFTswUcGc+zttbYLE7FA-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>

[ ceterum censeo, + John for addrlib :P ]

On 02.02.2017 02:49, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>> answered better by Dave.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, though so as well. Dave can you comment?
>
> I think we would require a fully open source user for this sort of thing,
> there are way to many corner cases for us to fall down here, prematurely
> pushing the API without a proven test suite running on it would be bad.
>
> We'd want to get radeonsi or radv up and running and have a complete
> run of the conformance suite to make sure the kernel API was sane,
> design is good, proving the design is the hard bit.

I think we can start with just GL_ARB_sparse_buffer. That extension 
isn't as useful in comparison, but it exercises all the memory 
management bits without having to worry about texture layout 
considerations, and doing that one first seems like a reasonable 
development strategy anyway.

> And uggh on addrlib, just stick the whole thing on github already.

I wish :/

Nicolai
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx