Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: OpenGL 2.x support with open source?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    90

    Default OpenGL 2.x support with open source?

    I've been testing out the latest open source drivers and mesa component and was wondering about OpenGL 2.x support. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that only OpenGL 1.3 is implemented. This isn't much of an issue in native OpenGL apps with sane fallbacks, but WINE seems to use 2.x features indiscriminantly when implementing DirectX, even older DirextX 7 and 8 commands.

    I was wondering if my understanding is right, and if OpenGL 2.x is on the roadmap.

    Thanks in advance and for all the hard work.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tillin9 View Post
    I've been testing out the latest open source drivers and mesa component and was wondering about OpenGL 2.x support. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that only OpenGL 1.3 is implemented. This isn't much of an issue in native OpenGL apps with sane fallbacks, but WINE seems to use 2.x features indiscriminantly when implementing DirectX, even older DirextX 7 and 8 commands.

    I was wondering if my understanding is right, and if OpenGL 2.x is on the roadmap.

    Thanks in advance and for all the hard work.
    OpenGL 2 is on the roadmap but it won't happen without proper memory management as from my memory GL 2 needs some extension which are painfull to support without that. So i guess not until you see some gallium driver floating around likely at end of this year.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,463

    Default

    Yep. I couldn't find anyone who thought that extending the current mesa driver stack to GL2.0 made sense

    We can use the current code base to get 3d going on R5xx/R6xx parts but anything past that will need Gallium, TTM etc...
    Last edited by bridgman; 03-08-2008 at 12:29 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    Yep. I couldn't find anyone who thought that extending the current mesa driver stack to GL2.0 made sense

    We can use the current code base to get 3d going on R5xx/R6xx parts but anything past that will need Gallium, TTM etc...
    You know that we are kid and attracted by all shiny stuff

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Thanks for the quick replies. I agree that Galium, TTM, etc. is more important than OpenGL 2.x support. To be honest though, I thought that those things would start showing up a bit earlier, but you guys would know much better than me.

    I'm not complaining, and am sure after watching the FOSDEM videos that Gallium is a good way to get all the nice shinny stuff we want out of the Linux / OSS desktop.

    Just since I have your ear... care to take a look at this: http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8226 In case this is a new or important issue. Since the previous posts in this thread makes it seem like the mesa work is going to be minimal and not adding new features (and thus I have no real motivation to use mesa git), if that issue is specific to me / something already on the todo list I 'll just wait it out and won't waste your time.
    Last edited by Tillin9; 03-09-2008 at 06:13 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,463

    Default

    Tillin9, can you pls confirm which version of X server you are running ? It seemed like a pretty recent one if I understood your post correctly.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    145

    Default

    hm, according to the mesa-website, it's already able to draw opengl 2.1 since mesa 7.0?!
    "Mesa 7.0 Release Notes / June 22, 2007

    Mesa 7.0 is a stable release, featuring OpenGL 2.1 API support. A number of bugs have been fixed since the 6.5.3 release."

    does that mean that mesa is ready for opengl 2.1 but the drivers aren't? (just want to understand this.. )

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Regenwald View Post
    hm, according to the mesa-website, it's already able to draw opengl 2.1 since mesa 7.0?!
    "Mesa 7.0 Release Notes / June 22, 2007

    Mesa 7.0 is a stable release, featuring OpenGL 2.1 API support. A number of bugs have been fixed since the 6.5.3 release."

    does that mean that mesa is ready for opengl 2.1 but the drivers aren't? (just want to understand this.. )
    Software mesa supports GL 2.1. The hardware drivers do not.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Thanks again. Since there are posts in the other thread, I'll respond there.

    One final issue about OpenGL 2.x. If I understand correctly, we can get into the situation where some drivers support 2.x, but others do not with the current mesa architecture, since each driver must implement much of OpenGL independently. However, with Gallium, this shouldn't happen as much of the OpenGL implementation is the same for all cards.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tillin9 View Post
    Thanks again. Since there are posts in the other thread, I'll respond there.

    One final issue about OpenGL 2.x. If I understand correctly, we can get into the situation where some drivers support 2.x, but others do not with the current mesa architecture, since each driver must implement much of OpenGL independently. However, with Gallium, this shouldn't happen as much of the OpenGL implementation is the same for all cards.
    Well not exactly, there is still a lot of driver specific stuff in gallium. But in the same time gallium requirement is pretty much GL 2. And no you don't need to implement much of opengl independently in mesa, you just need to advertise a set of extensions and according entry point for all the extensions. If this set is what required to be GL 2 then mesa advertise GL2 otherwise mesa advertise the highest GL version corresponding to the set of exposed extensions. Note this is a simplification as GLX is part of the party too and GL 2 likely have a GLX version requirement. Long time i haven't looked into GLX but i guess that we don't advertise newer GLX as we likely need the memory manager for doing so in a sane way.

Posting Permissions

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