R600 Open-Source Driver WIth GLSL, OpenGL 2.0

[bridgman]

The Gallium3D driver for 3xx-5xx already has GLSL and GL 2.1 enabled, and that's where all the development work is happening.

I believe the shader compiler still needs some work for flow control instructions, but initial impression is that they don't actually get used very much.

[monraaf]

And where's the work on GLSL and OpenGL 2.0 on Mesa for R300-R500 cards? Is it something about the same level or more/less advanced?

Don't know how far it is. But before this becomes yet another thread full of complaints from owners of pre-R600 cards. I suggest you all take a look at the git logs, there are far more commits for r300/r300g and more people working on r300/r300g than there are on r600.

[d2kx]

Richard enabled GLSL so that application testing could *start* (including making sure that enabling GLSL didn't cause previously working games to break), not because the work was *finished*.

Unfortunately, is *does* break some games. Quake Live for example runs dead slow with GLSL enabled, I assume it's using the software renderer. From what I have experienced in the past regarding Mesa-git updates, this will be fixed sooner than I could imagine.

[xeros]

Thanks for replies. I've read about R300 work with Gallium3D but I wanted to know what of that has been already backported(?) to Mesa as it it's going to distributions sooner than Gallium3D.

[Hephasteus]

I don't understand all the. Oh it's not going to come soon. Or it's not going to happen soon. These people have been working on this junk for YEARS. It's not like it's just getting off the ground or anything. I mean i read blogs about this stuff 2 years ago. I'll be shocked if it's not 90 percent done and Opengl 3.0 compatible in 6 months.

[DanL]

I don't understand all the. Oh it's not going to come soon. Or it's not going to happen soon. These people have been working on this junk for YEARS.

I think it's a product of the instant gratification-driven times we live in. For those of us who have really been following this stuff, we know how far open-source ATI support has come and how many prerequisite hurdles they've jumped to get to this point.

[DanL]

Shouldn't Gallium Core Drive for R600-R800 be changed from TODO to WIP? That is what VMware is working on, right

I think it is referring to an "r600g" driver, which AFAICT does not exist yet, since the work is being done for the classic mesa r600 driver first.
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mes...allium/drivers

[Dragonix]

The Gallium3D driver for 3xx-5xx already has GLSL and GL 2.1 enabled, and that's where all the development work is happening.

I believe the shader compiler still needs some work for flow control instructions, but initial impression is that they don't actually get used very much.

Interesting. Featuer matrix:
R500: GL Level: 1.5/2.0
R600+: GL Level: 2.0/3.0

GLSL:
R500: GLSL: WIP
R600+: GLSL: MOSTLY

Very interesting!

[bridgman]

Interesting. Featuer matrix:
R500: GL Level: 1.5/2.0
R600+: GL Level: 2.0/3.0

GLSL:
R500: GLSL: WIP
R600+: GLSL: MOSTLY

Very interesting!

The feature pages don't tell the whole story (but I'm not sure anyone is ready to change the layout *again* ). You need to look at the R500 : Gallium3D : MOSTLY and know that the Gallium3D feature more-or-less includes GLSL and GL2.1. At least that's the plan.

For 6xx-7xx there was no Gallium3D driver and 3D support of any kind was very recent so we added GLSL support to the existing "classic mesa" driver. For 3xx-5xx there was already a Gallium3D driver and developer focus had already shifted to the Gallium3D driver. Since the Gallium3D driver for 3xx-5xx already *had* GLSL and GL2.1 enabled it didn't seem to make a lot of sense to do anything in the "classic" HW driver.

[Dragonix]

The feature pages don't tell the whole story (but I'm not sure anyone is ready to change the layout *again* ). You need to look at the R500 : Gallium3D : MOSTLY and know that the Gallium3D feature more-or-less includes GLSL and GL2.1. At least that's the plan.

For 6xx-7xx there was no Gallium3D driver and 3D support of any kind was very recent so we added GLSL support to the existing "classic mesa" driver. For 3xx-5xx there was already a Gallium3D driver and developer focus had already shifted to the Gallium3D driver. Since the Gallium3D driver for 3xx-5xx already *had* GLSL and GL2.1 enabled it didn't seem to make a lot of sense to do anything in the "classic" HW driver.

So you advice me to use the Gallium driver? Great.. that halves the lousy performance again =)