Daniel van Vugt
daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com
Tue Nov 5 11:09:43 UTC 2013
I agree with "mesa", but wonder is that still true if we find ourselves
using Mesa's LLVMpipe on top of fbdev (vesa) later?
On 05/11/13 18:51, Alexandros Frantzis wrote:
> 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