Originally posted by PGHammer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
NVIDIA Says It Has No Plans To Support Wayland
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by PGHammer View PostFinding Intel there is no surprise (largely because of Gallium3D, which has a lot in common with Wayland); it's the presence of AMD that's the Left Field Event.Originally posted by PGHammer View PostPart of what is causing nVidia's reticence is that they remain hostile to Gallium3D (a solid support base for Gallium3D is pretty much a necessary for Wayland) - while AMD was late, at least they were (and are) there. Whether or not it will come back to bite them is in the hands of nVidia.
Comment
-
Wrong Company
Originally posted by smitty3268 View PostUh, Intel doesn't support Gallium3D and as far as i know has no plans to ever do so in the future. They seem to like their classic driver, for whatever reason, and have been pretty dismissive whenever someone has mentioned Gallium.
Intel likes the classic driver for X (because X.org did *not* adopt the model that Intel wanted in the GEM vs. TIM dustup). Gallium doesn't care about esoterica like that (because it's abstracted) - Wayland doesn't, either. Intel's graphical hardware supported Gallium3D before AMD's hardware did (primarily because the big driver for Gallium3D was portable computers, where, until recently, Intel, not AMD, had the largest GPU presence).
Comment
-
AFAIK the Gallium3D transition was largely independent of the GEM/TTM discussions... the only real dependency was a decision to only implement the Gallium3D stack over DRI2, which had a dependency on GEM/TTM, which in turn was implemented only for KMS systems.
The "radeon rewrite" initiative was primarily to let one set of userspace code work with both DRI1 and DRI2/GEM/TTM/KMS, by introducing a new abstraction layer for command submission and buffer management.Test signature
Comment
Comment