Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40

Thread: OpenGL 3.1 Not Likely In Mesa Until 2013

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    mesa desperately needs someone with deep pockets to back it up
    Why? Do you really need OGL 4.2 now?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nedanfor View Post
    Why? Do you really need OGL 4.2 now?
    probably not (though it'd be good to have) but i thing the FOSS stack needs Video Acceleration, OpenCL, bug fixing, and all the other things that are left behind due to lack of manpower.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    319

    Default

    I did a piglit run on fglrx the other day,

    http://people.freedesktop.org/~airli...it/fglrx-r600/

    so we can say we are a lot better in terms of actually passing tests :-)

    That is a piglit run from two AMD drivers a year apart.

    but really its only Intel working a lot on core mesa at the moment, with others expending time as jobs allow. Its not as is Red Hat can ship GL3.0 drivers anyways so working on them isn't a great spend of our time. and working on GL doesn't get you CL or video decode or anything. Also it not as if Red Hat can ship video decoders, so again no reason for us to invest heavily in them.

    Perhaps some of the distros that do ignore patents could invest more in these.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    984

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nedanfor View Post
    Why? Do you really need OGL 4.2 now?
    Why not? It would nice being able to play OilRush at the highest quality... but again performances are the main issue. Also we need at least 3.2 to get the best from wine.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darkbasic View Post
    Why not? It would nice being able to play OilRush at the highest quality... but again performances are the main issue. Also we need at least 3.2 to get the best from wine.
    Support in Mesa != Support in drivers. At the same time we need power management, performance, OCL, hw decoding, etc. etc. so I guess that only a little minority of us would really need OGL 4.x over all these feature.

    PS. Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge only support OGL 3.x so I think that Intel isn't directly interested in supporting OGL 4.x.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    984

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nedanfor View Post
    Support in Mesa != Support in drivers.
    Support in mesa means drivers will support it in ~6months.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nedanfor View Post
    At the same time we need power management
    Done (Intel)

    Quote Originally Posted by Nedanfor View Post
    performance
    WIP (Intel)

    Quote Originally Posted by Nedanfor View Post
    OCL
    WIP

    Quote Originally Posted by Nedanfor View Post
    hw decoding
    Done (Intel)

    Quote Originally Posted by Nedanfor View Post
    so I guess that only a little minority of us would really need OGL 4.x over all these feature.
    But we need 3.2

    Quote Originally Posted by Nedanfor View Post
    PS. Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge only support OGL 3.x so I think that Intel isn't directly interested in supporting OGL 4.x.
    They are already working on Haswell...

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darkbasic View Post
    Also we need at least 3.2 to get the best from wine.
    openGL3+wine extensions also work..... because of this i play windows games in wine right now with very good performance.

    the opensource drivers in fact do have the wine extensions from openGL3.2!

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by airlied View Post
    Perhaps some of the distros that do ignore patents could invest more in these.
    what kind of patents?

    isn't the floating point graphics patent a problem for openGL 3.0 ?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by airlied View Post
    I did a piglit run on fglrx the other day,

    http://people.freedesktop.org/~airli...it/fglrx-r600/

    so we can say we are a lot better in terms of actually passing tests :-)
    (edit) ubs,,, were is the comparison to the r600 driver?

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by airlied View Post
    Its not as is Red Hat can ship GL3.0 drivers anyways so working on them isn't a great spend of our time. and working on GL doesn't get you CL or video decode or anything. Also it not as if Red Hat can ship video decoders, so again no reason for us to invest heavily in them.
    True, what I expect from Red Hat or any other commercial distribution that is mostly popular on servers is to only care about OpenGL up to the level it can run a composited desktop with decent performance. What I would expect though is to care about power management, but probably what customers you have with AMD graphics cards have embedded graphics that don't use that much power to matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by airlied View Post
    Perhaps some of the distros that do ignore patents could invest more in these.
    If a distribution makes money out of selling their product it will care about patents. If it doesn't make money it doesn't have what to invest, so if a mesa developer is also a Gentoo or Arch developer that would be a pure coincidence, and I don't know of other distros enabling patented code by default.

Posting Permissions

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