| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
As someone with a Radeon / Intel hybrid/dual graphics chip. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I can only emphasise what Matt says below. It's a PITA currently. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Having said that ... I don't see how this can be made simpler, unless we |
| 8 |
have a tool of sorts that when run on *any* hardware gives you what this |
| 9 |
needs to be set to, or unconditionally install all possible drivers |
| 10 |
(something I'd prefer to avoid completely). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Kind Regards, |
| 13 |
Jaco |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
On 2019/12/17 23:21, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 16 |
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 10:26 AM Marek Szuba <marecki@g.o> wrote: |
| 17 |
>> What do you think, guys? |
| 18 |
> I don't love it. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I don't like the mess that has become VIDEO_CARDS=... either. radeon |
| 21 |
> vs radeonsi vs amdgpu. Different names for different bits of the |
| 22 |
> stack, even for the same hardware. I would like to come up with |
| 23 |
> something that avoids the confusion users often have. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Does anyone have suggestions? |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Should we make a cpuid2cpuflags equivalent for VIDEO_CARDS? |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Should VIDEO_CARDS specify only the vendor with MESA_VIDEO_CARDS=... |
| 30 |
> etc for individual packages? (Seems gross) |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Should VIDEO_CARDS be more fine grained with multiple names for the |
| 33 |
> same thing sometimes? (e.g., offer VIDEO_CARDS=amdgpu for |
| 34 |
> media-libs/mesa that enables the radeonsi driver; similarly offer |
| 35 |
> VIDEO_CARDS=radeonsi for x11-libs/libdrm that enables libdrm_radeon). |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> I think perhaps that in conjunction with a cpuid2cpuflags-equivalent |
| 38 |
> is the most sensible. |
| 39 |
> |
Archives