Calling interested Glamo OpenGL developers (was: The forbidden topic: Glamo OpenGL)
andy at openmoko.com
Sun Nov 16 22:34:13 CET 2008
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
| I have some questions, the glamo chip contains 3d support, what
| version of OpenGL (or OpenGL ES) is implemented?
| Are we still going to keep Xglamo (kdrive) or are we goint to use
| X.org server? (this question arised after Rastermans e-mail)
| Those are some good questions. From what I understand the Glamo is
| fixed-function and supports OpenGL ES 1.1. As far as changing Xglamo to
| be based on X over kdrive, I think to start, it would be best to leave
| Xglamo the way it is and just add-in OpenGL ES support, but if there
| were people dedicated to getting X support I would vote for it.
FWIW I talked this over with an experienced 3D guy recently about
something related and he was all in favour of discarding the kdrive
implementation and making a pure xorg one as a way forward: he told that
kdrive itself was long dead. I also know that XGlamo is not that great
a solution since it is largely the Linux framebuffer driver basically
cut and pasted into userspace with the locking not being shared between
kernel and userland. Whatever it's replaced with ought to be glued into
kernel Glamo framebuffer driver I think at the very least for any
critical shared parts like locking and this modal commandqueue stuff.
He also said the same that Glamo was ES, I think 1.1. Since Graeme is
going ahead with xorg generally it sounds like this is the recommended
path to follow if at all possible.
Lastly he mentioned 2442 has no float unit so this impacts the
implementation, but apparently it's not a killer to used fixed in ES.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the community