[Bug 21515] VENDOR_WINE vs VENDOR_ATI with xf86-video-ati

wine-bugs at winehq.org wine-bugs at winehq.org
Thu Feb 4 22:45:59 CST 2010


http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21515





--- Comment #28 from cruiseoveride <cruiseoveride at gmail.com>  2010-02-04 22:45:58 ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> (In reply to comment #24)
> > places where that info eventually becomes necessary. I suspect it would
> > actually be better to split VENDOR_MESA into VENDOR_MESA_ATI,
> > VENDOR_MESA_INTEL, VENDOR_MESA_SOFTPIPE(?), etc so that the actual card vendor
> > information is carried through the wined3d_pci_vendor enumeration. Hopefully
> > one of the wine devs will clarify which way to go.
> 
> I already mentioned this in a comment to the patch mentioned, but not here yet.
> You're mostly right here, but rather than stuffing that all into a single
> "vendor" field, we should split the field into "card vendor" and "GL vendor"
> fields. The card vendor would be what we pass to the application, while the GL
> vendor would be what we use internally to apply quirks etc.

Different drivers for the same hardware are likely to have fewer differences
than different drivers on different hardware, so whats wrong with using
VENDOR_ATI with AMD cards regardless of driver?

Is there a WINE developer working on a patch to add support for the radeon
driver? 

If not, how can one of us write an acceptable patch? ie. considering just
duplicating (more or less) all the strstr calls from under VENDOR_ATI to
VENDOR_MESA is unlikely to be an acceptable solution? Should
wined3d_guess_vendor() and wined3d_guess_card() be re-written with something
like libpci for detection?

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the
above URL to reply.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching all bug changes.



More information about the wine-bugs mailing list