Originally posted by ezst036
View Post
They even apoligized for how they handles
Originally posted by mdedetrich
View Post
I also found this PDF from Nvidia about explicit synchonization which echoes that statement about DMA-buf but it doesn't mention GBM either.
In a presentation in 2014, Nvidia said that GBM is fine, that they can use it, and pointed out that they could just use the Mesa implementation just like they wound up doing 7 years later. They just thought EGLStreams was better.
Clearly they have some issues with GBM though because they were working on something that could replace or kind of extend GBM but they haven't worked on it in 5 years.
Originally posted by mdedetrich
View Post
Originally posted by mdedetrich
View Post
"Yes, it certainly sounds like a sync issue. Our driver has no way to implement implicit sync, so it doesn't. For the most part, our kernel driver is blissfully unaware of what work is in flight and which buffers that work uses. It doesn't care beyond ensuring clients don't interfere with buffers they haven't allocated themselves or been granted access to, which the HW itself takes care of for the most part. We've been evaluating various ways to work around this issue for Xwayland specifically without tanking perf, but none of them have panned out so far. They either break X protocol guarantees, or don't work. Regardless, these mechanisms would only work for GL/Vulkan-based applications. Native X rendering in glamor itself still wouldn't sync properly unless using the EGLStream backend, where EGLStream handles synchronization internally from my understanding."
Originally posted by mdedetrich
View Post
I don't think a comment from Michel Danzer's alone is proof that Nvidia isn't welcome to help make the transition to explicit sync.
Originally posted by mdedetrich
View Post
But just to be extra clear, I do think the stack should go explicit sync, but that doesn't change the fact that Nvidia could have been more collaborative and definitely hindered Wayland adoption a lot.
Comment