|Mesa EGL with Wayland, and simplified X as comparison.|
The X11 part of the diagram is very much simplified. It completely ignores indirect rendering, DRI1, details of DRI2, and others. It only shows, that a direct rendering X11 EGL application uses the X11 protocol to create an X11 window, and the Mesa EGL X11 platform uses the DRI2 protocol in some way to communicate with the X server. Naturally the application also uses one of the OpenGL interfaces. The X server has hardware or platform specific drivers that are generally referred to as DDX. On the Linux DRI stack, these call into libdrm and the various driver specific sub-libraries. In the end they use the kernel DRM services, like kernel mode setting (KMS). All this in the diagram is just for comparison with a Wayland stack.
The Wayland server in the diagram is Weston with the DRM backend. The server does its rendering using GL ES 2, which it initialises by calling EGL. Since the server runs on "bare KMS", it uses the EGL DRM platform, which could really be called as the GBM platform, since it relies on the Mesa GBM interface. Mesa GBM is an abstraction of the graphics driver specific buffer management APIs (for instance the various libdrm_* libraries), implemented internally by calling into the Mesa GPU drivers.
Mesa GBM provides graphics memory buffers to Weston. Weston then uses EGL calls to bind them into GL objects, and renders into them with GL ES 2. A rendered buffer is shown on an output (monitor) by queuing a page flip via the libdrm KMS API.
If the EGL implementation offers the extension EGL_WL_bind_wayland_display, Weston will use it to register its wl_display object (facing the clients) to EGL. In practice, the Mesa EGL then adds a new global Wayland object to the wl_display. That object (or interface) is called wl_drm, and the server will automatically advertise that to all clients. Clients will use wl_drm for DRM authentication, getting the right DRM device node, and sharing graphics buffers with the server without copying pixels.
A Wayland client, naturally, connects to a Wayland server, and gets the main Wayland protocol object wl_display. The client creates a window, which is a Wayland object of type wl_surface. All what follows is enabled by the Wayland platform support in Mesa EGL.
The client passes the wl_display object to eglGetDisplay() and receives an EGLDisplay to be used with EGL calls. Then comes the trick that is denoted by the double-arrowed blue line from Wayland client to Mesa EGL in the diagram. The client calls the wayland-egl API (implemented in Mesa) function wl_egl_window_create() to get the native window handle. Normally you would just use the "real" native window object wl_surface (or an X11 Window if you were using X). The native window handle is used to create the EGLSurface EGL handle. Wayland has this extra step and the wayland-egl API because a wl_surface carries no information of its size. When the EGL library allocates buffers, it needs to know the size, and wayland-egl API is the only way to tell that.
Once EGL Wayland platform knows the size, it can allocate a graphics buffer by calling the Mesa GPU driver. Then this graphics buffer needs to be mapped into a Wayland protocol object wl_buffer. A wl_buffer object is created by sending a request through the wl_drm interface carrying the name of the (DRM) graphics buffer. In the server side, wl_drm requests are handled in the Mesa EGL library, where the corresponding server side part of the wl_buffer object is created. In the diagram this is shown as the blue dotted arrow from EGL Wayland platform to itself. Now, whenever the wl_buffer object is referenced in the Wayland protocol, the server knows exactly what it is.
The client now has an EGLSurface ready, and renders into it by using one of the GL APIs or OpenVG offered by Mesa. Finally, the client calls eglSwapBuffers() to show the result in its Wayland window.
The buffer swap in Mesa EGL Wayland platform uses the Wayland core protocol and sends an attach request to the wl_surface, with the wl_buffer as an argument. This is the blue dotted arrow from EGL Wayland platform to Wayland server.
Weston itself processes the attach request. It knows the buffer is not a shm buffer, so it passes the wl_buffer object to the Mesa EGL library in an eglCreateImageKHR() function call. In return Weston gets an EGLImage handle, which is then turned into a 2D texture, and used in drawing the surface (window). This operation is enabled by EGL_WL_bind_wayland_display extension.
The important facts, that should be apparent in the diagram, are:
- There are two different EGL platforms in play: one for the server, and one for the clients.
- A Wayland server does not contain any graphics hardware or driver specific code, it is all in the generic libraries of DRM, EGL and GL (libdrm and Mesa).
- Everything about wl_drm is an implementation detail internal to the EGL library in use.
It is also worth to note, that 3D graphics on X uses very much the same drivers as Wayland. However, due to the Wayland requirements from the EGL framework (extensions, EGL Wayland platform), proprietary driver stacks need to specifically implement Wayland support, or they need to be wrapped into a meta-EGL-library, that glues Wayland support on top. Proprietary drivers also need to provide a way to use accelerated graphics without X, for a Wayland server to run without X beneath. Therefore the desktop proprietary drivers like Nvidia's have a long way to go, as currently nvidia does not implement EGL at all, no support for Wayland, and no support for running without X, or even setting a video mode without X.
Due to the way wl_drm is totally encapsulated into Mesa EGL and how the interfaces are defined for the EGL Wayland platform and the EGL extension, another EGL implementor can choose their very own way of sharing graphics buffers instead of using wl_drm.
There are already plans to change to some of the architecture described in this article, so it is possible that details in the diagram become outdated fairly soon. This article also does not consider a purely software rendered Wayland stack, which certainly would lift all these requirements, but quite likely be too slow in practice for the desktop.
See also: the authoritative description of the Wayland architecture
New comments are not allowed.