alexandros.frantzis at canonical.com
Tue Nov 5 10:51:03 UTC 2013
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 11:36:34AM +0100, Thomas Voß wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Alexandros Frantzis
> <alexandros.frantzis at canonical.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:41:29AM +0800, Daniel van Vugt wrote:
> >> Yeah, very good point about "gbm". That confused me when I joined to
> >> project too. It should be called "dri", I think.
> > What about just "mesa"? I think "mesa" is more recognizable, and
> > adequately descriptive of the backend's target driver model and APIs.
> > I don't think Mesa has or will have significant competing non-dri
> > backends. Having said that, I am fine with either "dri" or "mesa".
> I would rather prefer dri as opposed to mesa. Although your argument
> is technically correct, there is the difference of interface name
> (dri) and implementation (mesa) and I tend to favor the interface name
We are heavily using some Mesa components/interfaces, like GBM, that are
not part of DRI, though.
More information about the Mir-devel