| 1 |
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 10:26 AM Marek Szuba <marecki@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> What do you think, guys? |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
I don't love it. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I don't like the mess that has become VIDEO_CARDS=... either. radeon |
| 7 |
vs radeonsi vs amdgpu. Different names for different bits of the |
| 8 |
stack, even for the same hardware. I would like to come up with |
| 9 |
something that avoids the confusion users often have. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Does anyone have suggestions? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Should we make a cpuid2cpuflags equivalent for VIDEO_CARDS? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Should VIDEO_CARDS specify only the vendor with MESA_VIDEO_CARDS=... |
| 16 |
etc for individual packages? (Seems gross) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Should VIDEO_CARDS be more fine grained with multiple names for the |
| 19 |
same thing sometimes? (e.g., offer VIDEO_CARDS=amdgpu for |
| 20 |
media-libs/mesa that enables the radeonsi driver; similarly offer |
| 21 |
VIDEO_CARDS=radeonsi for x11-libs/libdrm that enables libdrm_radeon). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I think perhaps that in conjunction with a cpuid2cpuflags-equivalent |
| 24 |
is the most sensible. |
Archives