GPU tests on master next - core-image-x11 - sfp

GPU tests on master next - core-image-x11 - sfp

[Daiane Angolini]

I've been running some tests on master-next.

I used the following commands. Do you know any other I could run?


RESULTS:
$ DISPLAY=:0 glxgears
108 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21.508 FPS

$ DISPLAY=:0 es2gears_x11
1494 frames in 5.0 seconds = 298.740 FPS

$ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2
glmark2 Score: 212

$ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2 --fullscreen
glmark2 Score: 229



For the complete log:
http://pastebin.com/KG8VEmAZ


-- 
Daiane

Re: GPU tests on master next - core-image-x11 - sfp

[Daiane Angolini]

On 08/28/2013 01:43 PM, Daiane Angolini wrote:
> I've been running some tests on master-next.
>
> I used the following commands. Do you know any other I could run?
>
>

The past email, was for SOFT fp
> RESULTS:
> $ DISPLAY=:0 glxgears
> 108 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21.508 FPS
>
> $ DISPLAY=:0 es2gears_x11
> 1494 frames in 5.0 seconds = 298.740 FPS
>
> $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2
> glmark2 Score: 212
>
> $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2 --fullscreen
> glmark2 Score: 229

The results for HARD fp:


$ DISPLAY=:0 glxgears
107 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21.395 FPS

$ DISPLAY=:0 es2gears_x11
1451 frames in 5.0 seconds = 290.200 FPS

$ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2
glmark2 Score: 213

$ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2 --fullscreen
glmark2 Score: 228


>
>
>
> For the complete log:
> http://pastebin.com/KG8VEmAZ

For the complete log for HARD fp:
http://pastebin.com/q6sx6Y1h

>
>


-- 
Daiane

Re: GPU tests on master next - core-image-x11 - sfp

[Eric Bénard]

Le Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:20:25 -0300,
Daiane Angolini <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> a écrit :

> On 08/28/2013 01:43 PM, Daiane Angolini wrote:
> > I've been running some tests on master-next.
> >
> > I used the following commands. Do you know any other I could run?
> >
> >
> 
> The past email, was for SOFT fp
> > RESULTS:
> > $ DISPLAY=:0 glxgears
> > 108 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21.508 FPS
> >
> > $ DISPLAY=:0 es2gears_x11
> > 1494 frames in 5.0 seconds = 298.740 FPS
> >
> > $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2
> > glmark2 Score: 212
> >
> > $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2 --fullscreen
> > glmark2 Score: 229
> 
> The results for HARD fp:
> 
> 
> $ DISPLAY=:0 glxgears
> 107 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21.395 FPS
> 
> $ DISPLAY=:0 es2gears_x11
> 1451 frames in 5.0 seconds = 290.200 FPS
> 
> $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2
> glmark2 Score: 213
> 
> $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2 --fullscreen
> glmark2 Score: 228
> 
so hardfp brings lower results than softfp ... interesting ;-)

Eric

Re: GPU tests on master next - core-image-x11 - sfp

[Daiane Angolini]

On 08/28/2013 03:00 PM, Eric Bénard wrote:
> Le Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:20:25 -0300,
> Daiane Angolini <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> a écrit :
>
>> On 08/28/2013 01:43 PM, Daiane Angolini wrote:
>>> I've been running some tests on master-next.
>>>
>>> I used the following commands. Do you know any other I could run?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The past email, was for SOFT fp
>>> RESULTS:
>>> $ DISPLAY=:0 glxgears
>>> 108 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21.508 FPS
>>>
>>> $ DISPLAY=:0 es2gears_x11
>>> 1494 frames in 5.0 seconds = 298.740 FPS
>>>
>>> $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2
>>> glmark2 Score: 212
>>>
>>> $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2 --fullscreen
>>> glmark2 Score: 229
>>
>> The results for HARD fp:
>>
>>
>> $ DISPLAY=:0 glxgears
>> 107 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21.395 FPS
>>
>> $ DISPLAY=:0 es2gears_x11
>> 1451 frames in 5.0 seconds = 290.200 FPS
>>
>> $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2
>> glmark2 Score: 213
>>
>> $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2 --fullscreen
>> glmark2 Score: 228
>>
> so hardfp brings lower results than softfp ... interesting ;-)

I took only measure. One time. I haven't calculated the standard 
deviation or error from measures.

I would say the results is just "equal".

And, I'm not sure how much hfp and sfp impacts the result of a task 
executed mainly by hardware (gpu).


Do you think, by the results, that there is still any bug?


>
> Eric
>


-- 
Daiane

Re: GPU tests on master next - core-image-x11 - sfp

[Eric Bénard]

Le Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:29:29 -0300,
Daiane Angolini <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> a écrit :

> On 08/28/2013 03:00 PM, Eric Bénard wrote:
> > Le Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:20:25 -0300,
> > Daiane Angolini <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> a écrit :
> >
> >> On 08/28/2013 01:43 PM, Daiane Angolini wrote:
> >>> I've been running some tests on master-next.
> >>>
> >>> I used the following commands. Do you know any other I could run?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> The past email, was for SOFT fp
> >>> RESULTS:
> >>> $ DISPLAY=:0 glxgears
> >>> 108 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21.508 FPS
> >>>
> >>> $ DISPLAY=:0 es2gears_x11
> >>> 1494 frames in 5.0 seconds = 298.740 FPS
> >>>
> >>> $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2
> >>> glmark2 Score: 212
> >>>
> >>> $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2 --fullscreen
> >>> glmark2 Score: 229
> >>
> >> The results for HARD fp:
> >>
> >>
> >> $ DISPLAY=:0 glxgears
> >> 107 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21.395 FPS
> >>
> >> $ DISPLAY=:0 es2gears_x11
> >> 1451 frames in 5.0 seconds = 290.200 FPS
> >>
> >> $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2
> >> glmark2 Score: 213
> >>
> >> $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2 --fullscreen
> >> glmark2 Score: 228
> >>
> > so hardfp brings lower results than softfp ... interesting ;-)
> 
> I took only measure. One time. I haven't calculated the standard 
> deviation or error from measures.
> 
> I would say the results is just "equal".
> 
> And, I'm not sure how much hfp and sfp impacts the result of a task 
> executed mainly by hardware (gpu).
> 
> 
> Do you think, by the results, that there is still any bug?
> 
on the GPU point of view no.

I find interesting that the hardfp gives lower results than the
softfp : maybe that would be interesting to have true real life
benchmarks on this side (not GPU centric) before defaulting hardfp in
meta-fsl-arm for i.MX6 platforms.

Eric

Re: GPU tests on master next - core-image-x11 - sfp

[Alexandre Belloni]

Hi,

On 28/08/2013 22:27, Eric Bénard wrote:
>
> on the GPU point of view no.
>
> I find interesting that the hardfp gives lower results than the
> softfp : maybe that would be interesting to have true real life
> benchmarks on this side (not GPU centric) before defaulting hardfp in
> meta-fsl-arm for i.MX6 platforms.

I'm not sure we can actually find real life benchmarks, it always
depends on how intensive are the floating point operation compared to
the rest of the system.

Also, I remember seeing that the difference between softfp and hardfp is
not as big on cortex-a9 as on cortex-a8. Actually, softfp is already
using the VFP but using the soft ABI. Then, it has to copy values from
integer registers to float registers and that is the overhead. This
overhead is lower on cortex-a9 because the vfp is pipelined, this was
not the case on cortex -a8.

You can find interesting benchs here:

https://wiki.linaro.org/OfficeofCTO/HardFloat/Benchmarks
https://wiki.linaro.org/OfficeofCTO/HardFloat/Benchmarks201205


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

Re: GPU tests on master next - core-image-x11 - sfp

[Daiane Angolini]

On 08/29/2013 05:01 AM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 28/08/2013 22:27, Eric Bénard wrote:
>>
>> on the GPU point of view no.
>>
>> I find interesting that the hardfp gives lower results than the
>> softfp : maybe that would be interesting to have true real life
>> benchmarks on this side (not GPU centric) before defaulting hardfp in
>> meta-fsl-arm for i.MX6 platforms.
>
> I'm not sure we can actually find real life benchmarks, it always
> depends on how intensive are the floating point operation compared to
> the rest of the system.
>
> Also, I remember seeing that the difference between softfp and hardfp is
> not as big on cortex-a9 as on cortex-a8. Actually, softfp is already
> using the VFP but using the soft ABI. Then, it has to copy values from
> integer registers to float registers and that is the overhead. This
> overhead is lower on cortex-a9 because the vfp is pipelined, this was
> not the case on cortex -a8.
>
> You can find interesting benchs here:
>
> https://wiki.linaro.org/OfficeofCTO/HardFloat/Benchmarks
> https://wiki.linaro.org/OfficeofCTO/HardFloat/Benchmarks201205

sweet

>
>


-- 
Daiane

Re: GPU tests on master next - core-image-x11 - sfp

[Daiane Angolini]

On 08/28/2013 05:27 PM, Eric Bénard wrote:
> Le Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:29:29 -0300,
> Daiane Angolini <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> a écrit :
>
>> On 08/28/2013 03:00 PM, Eric Bénard wrote:
>>> Le Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:20:25 -0300,
>>> Daiane Angolini <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> a écrit :
>>>
>>>> On 08/28/2013 01:43 PM, Daiane Angolini wrote:
>>>>> I've been running some tests on master-next.
>>>>>
>>>>> I used the following commands. Do you know any other I could run?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The past email, was for SOFT fp
>>>>> RESULTS:
>>>>> $ DISPLAY=:0 glxgears
>>>>> 108 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21.508 FPS
>>>>>
>>>>> $ DISPLAY=:0 es2gears_x11
>>>>> 1494 frames in 5.0 seconds = 298.740 FPS
>>>>>
>>>>> $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2
>>>>> glmark2 Score: 212
>>>>>
>>>>> $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2 --fullscreen
>>>>> glmark2 Score: 229
>>>>
>>>> The results for HARD fp:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> $ DISPLAY=:0 glxgears
>>>> 107 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21.395 FPS
>>>>
>>>> $ DISPLAY=:0 es2gears_x11
>>>> 1451 frames in 5.0 seconds = 290.200 FPS
>>>>
>>>> $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2
>>>> glmark2 Score: 213
>>>>
>>>> $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2 --fullscreen
>>>> glmark2 Score: 228
>>>>
>>> so hardfp brings lower results than softfp ... interesting ;-)
>>
>> I took only measure. One time. I haven't calculated the standard
>> deviation or error from measures.
>>
>> I would say the results is just "equal".
>>
>> And, I'm not sure how much hfp and sfp impacts the result of a task
>> executed mainly by hardware (gpu).
>>
>>
>> Do you think, by the results, that there is still any bug?
>>
> on the GPU point of view no.

Great, the most important question I need to answer is "is that working".
>
> I find interesting that the hardfp gives lower results than the
> softfp : maybe that would be interesting to have true real life
> benchmarks on this side (not GPU centric) before defaulting hardfp in
> meta-fsl-arm for i.MX6 platforms.

With some time/test we can decide "which is the best"

Nice ;-)


>
> Eric
>


-- 
Daiane

Re: GPU tests on master next - core-image-x11 - sfp

[Christian Betz]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Daiane Angolini
<daiane.angolini@freescale.com> wrote:
> I've been running some tests on master-next.
>
> I used the following commands. Do you know any other I could run?
>
>
> RESULTS:
> $ DISPLAY=:0 glxgears
> 108 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21.508 FPS
>
> $ DISPLAY=:0 es2gears_x11
> 1494 frames in 5.0 seconds = 298.740 FPS
>
> $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2
> glmark2 Score: 212
>
> $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2 --fullscreen
> glmark2 Score: 229

this is great news. thank you for sharing.

does this imply that windowed mode acceleration is working now? (i
seem to recall it was broken)

Re: GPU tests on master next - core-image-x11 - sfp

[Daiane Angolini]

On 08/28/2013 06:53 PM, Christian Betz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Daiane Angolini
> <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> wrote:
>> I've been running some tests on master-next.
>>
>> I used the following commands. Do you know any other I could run?
>>
>>
>> RESULTS:
>> $ DISPLAY=:0 glxgears
>> 108 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21.508 FPS
>>
>> $ DISPLAY=:0 es2gears_x11
>> 1494 frames in 5.0 seconds = 298.740 FPS
>>
>> $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2
>> glmark2 Score: 212
>>
>> $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2 --fullscreen
>> glmark2 Score: 229
>
> this is great news. thank you for sharing.
>
> does this imply that windowed mode acceleration is working now? (i
> seem to recall it was broken)

I think so, but how can I test it (for sure)?

I see the xterm on my screen

> _______________________________________________
> meta-freescale mailing list
> meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
>


-- 
Daiane

Re: GPU tests on master next - core-image-x11 - sfp

[Daiane Angolini]

On 08/29/2013 08:44 AM, Daiane Angolini wrote:
> On 08/28/2013 06:53 PM, Christian Betz wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Daiane Angolini
>> <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> wrote:
>>> I've been running some tests on master-next.
>>>
>>> I used the following commands. Do you know any other I could run?
>>>
>>>
>>> RESULTS:
>>> $ DISPLAY=:0 glxgears
>>> 108 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21.508 FPS
>>>
>>> $ DISPLAY=:0 es2gears_x11
>>> 1494 frames in 5.0 seconds = 298.740 FPS
>>>
>>> $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2
>>> glmark2 Score: 212
>>>
>>> $ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2 --fullscreen
>>> glmark2 Score: 229
>>
>> this is great news. thank you for sharing.
>>
>> does this imply that windowed mode acceleration is working now? (i
>> seem to recall it was broken)
>
> I think so, but how can I test it (for sure)?


I was told:

	If you're looking to verify the alpha.2 windowed mode optimizations, 
compare frame rates to the alpha.1 binaries for es2 applications in 
windowed mode:
	es2gears_x11, glmark2-es2, /opt/viv_samples/vdk/tutorial*_es20
	They're roughly 10x higher, and comparable to fullscreen performance.
	
	You can see that glx hasn't been optimized because windowed mode for 
glxgears is still ~22 fps, where the fullscreen is ~300.


-- 
Daiane

Re: GPU tests on master next - core-image-x11 - sfp

[Diego Rondini]

> You can see that glx hasn't been optimized because windowed mode for
> glxgears is still ~22 fps, where the fullscreen is ~300.

Daiane, do you know if that means that now there's support for pure OpenGL 2.1 
functionalities in the build?
And by OpenGL 2.1 I really mean OpenGL, not OpenGL ES x.y.

I can partially run glmark2 (not glmark2-es) with some errors, but driver is 
reporting:
# glmark2 --fullscreen
** GLX does not support GLX_EXT_swap_control or GLX_MESA_swap_control!
** Failed to set swap interval. Results may be bounded above by refresh rate.
=======================================================
    glmark2 2012.12
=======================================================
    OpenGL Information
    GL_VENDOR:     Vivante Corporation
    GL_RENDERER:   GC2000 Graphics Engine
    GL_VERSION:    2.1 2.0.1
=======================================================
** GLX does not support GLX_EXT_swap_control or GLX_MESA_swap_control!
** Failed to set swap interval. Results may be bounded above by refresh rate.
[build] use-vbo=false: FPS: 101 FrameTime: 9.901 ms
** GLX does not support GLX_EXT_swap_control or GLX_MESA_swap_control!
** Failed to set swap interval. Results may be bounded above by refresh rate.
[build] use-vbo=true: FPS: 108 FrameTime: 9.259 ms


So GL_VERSION is "2.1  2.0.1", not "OpenGL ES 2.0".

Same goes for:
# glxinfo
name of display: :0
display: :0  screen: 0
direct rendering: Yes
server glx vendor string: SGI
server glx version string: 1.4
server glx extensions:
    GLX_ARB_multisample, GLX_EXT_import_context, GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap,
    GLX_EXT_visual_info, GLX_EXT_visual_rating, GLX_MESA_copy_sub_buffer,
    GLX_OML_swap_method, GLX_SGIS_multisample, GLX_SGIX_fbconfig,
    GLX_SGIX_pbuffer, GLX_SGI_make_current_read
client glx vendor string: Vivante Corp   
client glx version string: 1.4
client glx extensions:
    GLX_ARB_get_proc_address, GLX_SGIX_fbconfig, GLX_SGIX_pbuffer,
    GLX_SGI_make_current_read
GLX version: 1.4
GLX extensions:
    GLX_SGIX_fbconfig, GLX_SGIX_pbuffer, GLX_SGI_make_current_read
OpenGL vendor string: Vivante Corporation
OpenGL renderer string: GC2000 Graphics Engine
OpenGL version string: 2.1 2.0.1
OpenGL shading language version string: 1.20
OpenGL extensions:
    GL_ARB_depth_texture, GL_ARB_fragment_program_shadow, 
    GL_ARB_fragment_shader, GL_ARB_imaging, GL_ARB_multisample, 
    GL_ARB_multitexture, GL_ARB_pixel_buffer_object, GL_ARB_shader_objects, 
    GL_ARB_texture_compression, GL_ARB_texture_env_add, 
    GL_ARB_texture_env_combine, GL_ARB_texture_non_power_of_two, 
    GL_ARB_texture_rectangle, GL_ARB_vertex_buffer_object, 
    GL_ARB_vertex_shader, GL_ARB_window_pos, GL_ATI_draw_buffers, 
    GL_ATI_element_array, GL_ATI_separate_stencil, 
    GL_ATI_texture_env_combine3, GL_ATI_vertex_array_object, GL_EXT_abgr, 
    GL_EXT_bgra, GL_EXT_blend_color, GL_EXT_blend_equation_separate, 
    GL_EXT_blend_func_separate, GL_EXT_color_table, GL_EXT_convolution, 
    GL_EXT_draw_buffers2, GL_EXT_draw_instanced, GL_EXT_draw_range_elements, 
    GL_EXT_framebuffer_blit, GL_EXT_framebuffer_multisample, 
    GL_EXT_framebuffer_object, GL_EXT_histogram, GL_EXT_pixel_buffer_object, 
    GL_EXT_polygon_offset, GL_EXT_rescale_normal, GL_EXT_secondary_color, 
    GL_EXT_separate_specular_color, GL_EXT_stencil_two_side, 
    GL_EXT_subtexture, GL_EXT_texture, GL_EXT_texture3D, 
    GL_EXT_texture_array, GL_EXT_texture_buffer_object, 
    GL_EXT_texture_compression_s3tc, GL_EXT_texture_cube_map, 
    GL_EXT_texture_env_add, GL_EXT_texture_env_combine, 
    GL_EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic, GL_EXT_texture_lod_bias, 
    GL_EXT_texture_object, GL_EXT_texture_rectangle, GL_EXT_timer_query, 
    GL_EXT_vertex_array, GL_NV_texture_rectangle, GL_SGIS_generate_mipmap, 
    GL_SGIS_texture_lod, GL_SGI_color_matrix, WGL_ARB_extensions_string, 
    WGL_EXT_extensions_string, WGL_EXT_swap_control

So will be OpenGL be possible?

Thanks,
Diego

Re: GPU tests on master next - core-image-x11 - sfp

[Daiane Angolini]

On 08/30/2013 12:53 PM, Diego Rondini wrote:
>> You can see that glx hasn't been optimized because windowed mode for
>> glxgears is still ~22 fps, where the fullscreen is ~300.
>
> Daiane, do you know if that means that now there's support for pure OpenGL 2.1
> functionalities in the build?
> And by OpenGL 2.1 I really mean OpenGL, not OpenGL ES x.y.

I know this is not the first GPU release that support OpenGL (I cannot 
ensure the version number because I really don't remember). So, this GPU 
versio DOES support OpenGL.

During my testes I faced libGL.so AND libEGL.so. So, it does support both.


>
> I can partially run glmark2 (not glmark2-es) with some errors, but driver is
> reporting:
> # glmark2 --fullscreen
> ** GLX does not support GLX_EXT_swap_control or GLX_MESA_swap_control!
> ** Failed to set swap interval. Results may be bounded above by refresh rate.
> =======================================================
>      glmark2 2012.12
> =======================================================
>      OpenGL Information
>      GL_VENDOR:     Vivante Corporation
>      GL_RENDERER:   GC2000 Graphics Engine
>      GL_VERSION:    2.1 2.0.1
> =======================================================
> ** GLX does not support GLX_EXT_swap_control or GLX_MESA_swap_control!
> ** Failed to set swap interval. Results may be bounded above by refresh rate.
> [build] use-vbo=false: FPS: 101 FrameTime: 9.901 ms
> ** GLX does not support GLX_EXT_swap_control or GLX_MESA_swap_control!
> ** Failed to set swap interval. Results may be bounded above by refresh rate.
> [build] use-vbo=true: FPS: 108 FrameTime: 9.259 ms
>
>
> So GL_VERSION is "2.1  2.0.1", not "OpenGL ES 2.0".
>
> Same goes for:
> # glxinfo
> name of display: :0
> display: :0  screen: 0
> direct rendering: Yes
> server glx vendor string: SGI
> server glx version string: 1.4
> server glx extensions:
>      GLX_ARB_multisample, GLX_EXT_import_context, GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap,
>      GLX_EXT_visual_info, GLX_EXT_visual_rating, GLX_MESA_copy_sub_buffer,
>      GLX_OML_swap_method, GLX_SGIS_multisample, GLX_SGIX_fbconfig,
>      GLX_SGIX_pbuffer, GLX_SGI_make_current_read
> client glx vendor string: Vivante Corp
> client glx version string: 1.4
> client glx extensions:
>      GLX_ARB_get_proc_address, GLX_SGIX_fbconfig, GLX_SGIX_pbuffer,
>      GLX_SGI_make_current_read
> GLX version: 1.4
> GLX extensions:
>      GLX_SGIX_fbconfig, GLX_SGIX_pbuffer, GLX_SGI_make_current_read
> OpenGL vendor string: Vivante Corporation
> OpenGL renderer string: GC2000 Graphics Engine
> OpenGL version string: 2.1 2.0.1
> OpenGL shading language version string: 1.20
> OpenGL extensions:
>      GL_ARB_depth_texture, GL_ARB_fragment_program_shadow,
>      GL_ARB_fragment_shader, GL_ARB_imaging, GL_ARB_multisample,
>      GL_ARB_multitexture, GL_ARB_pixel_buffer_object, GL_ARB_shader_objects,
>      GL_ARB_texture_compression, GL_ARB_texture_env_add,
>      GL_ARB_texture_env_combine, GL_ARB_texture_non_power_of_two,
>      GL_ARB_texture_rectangle, GL_ARB_vertex_buffer_object,
>      GL_ARB_vertex_shader, GL_ARB_window_pos, GL_ATI_draw_buffers,
>      GL_ATI_element_array, GL_ATI_separate_stencil,
>      GL_ATI_texture_env_combine3, GL_ATI_vertex_array_object, GL_EXT_abgr,
>      GL_EXT_bgra, GL_EXT_blend_color, GL_EXT_blend_equation_separate,
>      GL_EXT_blend_func_separate, GL_EXT_color_table, GL_EXT_convolution,
>      GL_EXT_draw_buffers2, GL_EXT_draw_instanced, GL_EXT_draw_range_elements,
>      GL_EXT_framebuffer_blit, GL_EXT_framebuffer_multisample,
>      GL_EXT_framebuffer_object, GL_EXT_histogram, GL_EXT_pixel_buffer_object,
>      GL_EXT_polygon_offset, GL_EXT_rescale_normal, GL_EXT_secondary_color,
>      GL_EXT_separate_specular_color, GL_EXT_stencil_two_side,
>      GL_EXT_subtexture, GL_EXT_texture, GL_EXT_texture3D,
>      GL_EXT_texture_array, GL_EXT_texture_buffer_object,
>      GL_EXT_texture_compression_s3tc, GL_EXT_texture_cube_map,
>      GL_EXT_texture_env_add, GL_EXT_texture_env_combine,
>      GL_EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic, GL_EXT_texture_lod_bias,
>      GL_EXT_texture_object, GL_EXT_texture_rectangle, GL_EXT_timer_query,
>      GL_EXT_vertex_array, GL_NV_texture_rectangle, GL_SGIS_generate_mipmap,
>      GL_SGIS_texture_lod, GL_SGI_color_matrix, WGL_ARB_extensions_string,
>      WGL_EXT_extensions_string, WGL_EXT_swap_control
>
> So will be OpenGL be possible?

yes ^.^


-- 
Daiane

Re: GPU tests on master next - core-image-x11 - sfp

[Diego]

In data venerdì 30 agosto 2013 13:53:23, Daiane Angolini ha scritto:
> On 08/30/2013 12:53 PM, Diego Rondini wrote:
> >> You can see that glx hasn't been optimized because windowed mode for
> >> glxgears is still ~22 fps, where the fullscreen is ~300.
> > 
> > Daiane, do you know if that means that now there's support for pure OpenGL
> > 2.1 functionalities in the build?
> > And by OpenGL 2.1 I really mean OpenGL, not OpenGL ES x.y.
> 
> I know this is not the first GPU release that support OpenGL (I cannot
> ensure the version number because I really don't remember). So, this GPU
> versio DOES support OpenGL.
> 
> During my testes I faced libGL.so AND libEGL.so. So, it does support both.
> 

I have those libs too, but it looks like gpu-viv-bin-mx6q-3.5.7-1.0.0-alpha.2-
hfp.bin doesn't include any GL header, so while the library is there, there's 
no official way to interface to libGL.so.

Do you have any information about that issue? Should I file a bug report?

Thanks,
Diego

Re: GPU tests on master next - core-image-x11 - sfp

[Daiane Angolini]

On 09/02/2013 05:15 AM, Diego wrote:
> In data venerdì 30 agosto 2013 13:53:23, Daiane Angolini ha scritto:
>> On 08/30/2013 12:53 PM, Diego Rondini wrote:
>>>> You can see that glx hasn't been optimized because windowed mode for
>>>> glxgears is still ~22 fps, where the fullscreen is ~300.
>>>
>>> Daiane, do you know if that means that now there's support for pure OpenGL
>>> 2.1 functionalities in the build?
>>> And by OpenGL 2.1 I really mean OpenGL, not OpenGL ES x.y.
>>
>> I know this is not the first GPU release that support OpenGL (I cannot
>> ensure the version number because I really don't remember). So, this GPU
>> versio DOES support OpenGL.
>>
>> During my testes I faced libGL.so AND libEGL.so. So, it does support both.
>>
>
> I have those libs too, but it looks like gpu-viv-bin-mx6q-3.5.7-1.0.0-alpha.2-
> hfp.bin doesn't include any GL header, so while the library is there, there's
> no official way to interface to libGL.so.
>
> Do you have any information about that issue? Should I file a bug report?

No, I don't have any other information. Please, submit a bug report ;-)

This is only a "bug" from hfp package? Could you, please, test sfp as 
well and report a complete bug report?

Thanks in advance.

>
> Thanks,
> Diego
>
>


-- 
Daiane