Saying that a driver vendor "implements the mesa interface" while there's almost no linkage to Mesa remaining is obviously confusing.
Also, gbm being part of Mesa is just a minor implementation detail. Even if a vendor used that implementation, most of their driver would be non-Mesa code.
So in both cases the word "mesa" needs to go away.
Saying that a driver vendor "implements the mesa interface" while there's almost no linkage to Mesa remaining is obviously confusing.
Also, gbm being part of Mesa is just a minor implementation detail. Even if a vendor used that implementation, most of their driver would be non-Mesa code.
So in both cases the word "mesa" needs to go away.