Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: I Have VirtualBox's Attention for Gallium3D

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    196

    Default I Have VirtualBox's Attention for Gallium3D

    I've had a bug open for a while now asking for a Gallium3D driver for VirtualBox. One of the developers (Michael) is asking questions that are beyond my knowledge.

    Actually I would now like to put a question back to you. Can you tell me whether my understanding is correct that a DRI2 driver based on Gallium3D will only be compatible with the version of Mesa (possibly even the build of Mesa) that it was built against? I realise that DRI2 was originally supposed to be an independent ABI, but as far as I can see they never managed to break the Mesa dependency.
    I would appreciate any help I could get here.

    VirtualBox Ticket #6526

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,283

    Default

    My understanding was that Gallium3D/pipe/winsys acted as a library you could statically link into "any" driver, and compatibility with kernel (and maybe X) would be a function of the winsys code that was used. Mesa is just one example of a driver that can be built over Gallium3D, and multiple Gallium3D-based drivers should be able to co-exist assuming they each performed different functions (so you don't get two libGL implementations fighting, for example).

    Mesa compatibility shouldn't be an issue unless there was some kind of "hardware programming philosopy break", where (for example) a new version of Mesa programmed some registers in a new way that the other driver didn't (re)program, ie if the other driver made assumptions about hardware state based on the way Mesa happened to leave it.

    Take this with the usual grain of salt.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •