Dne 1.9.2010 02:53, Eric Anholt napsal(a): > On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:17:43 +0200, Zdenek Kabelac <zkabe...@redhat.com> > wrote: >> Dne 28.8.2010 05:55, Eric Anholt napsal(a): >>> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:16:04 +0200, Zdenek Kabelac <zkabe...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On 27.8.2010 12:02, Julien Cristau wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:26:59 +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Why keeping different name for C++ and C ? >>>>>> >>>>> Because changing the name for C means breaking API for existing users, >>>>> which is not a nice thing to do. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Well if DRM would have very stable API - it would make sence - but from a >>>> view >>>> of occasional user who needs to compile drm for intel driver - it seems >>>> the >>>> API is changed so frequently and in such an incompatible way that this >>>> change >>>> doesn't look all that bad. >>>> >>>> How many libdrm project users are there - and how often is this variable >>>> used >>>> outside of libdrm ? >>>> >>>> Now C++ will use different names for same variables - that IMHO bigger >>>> issue... >>>> >>>> Also - if headers are supposed to be C++ friendly - maybe usage of >>>> extern "C" might be handy for such case ? >>> >>> Uh, you claim the API has changed, but I'm not aware of any circumstance >>> since TTM removal where upgrading libdrm on Intel should have broken >>> either API or ABI for its users. Can you back that up? >> >> Ok - I'm remembering this issue: >> >> Essentially I've had idea to try to bisect for this problem: >> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26937 >> >> As I'm quite sure, that there were times were I could use fullscreen for >> flash >> without fear of having to restart my desktop. >> >> So I've tried just some random older git versions of libdrm & intel driver - > > there were some minor compilations issue (I guess some list defines > conflicts >> and few other minor things for compilation). >> >> However compiled driver & library actually never worked and all I got was >> usually black screen. It's probably hard to judge if the problem is kernel >> driver (using usually quite fresh vanilla git tree) or Xorg from Fedora >> Rawhide can't work with some slightly older libdrm/intel. It probably not >> reasonable to spend time to detect where exactly is problem - all I want to >> point out is, that some internal API must changed significantly so while I >> could usually boot with 2 year old kernel, I cannot use few months old >> drm&intel driver. >> >> And back to this issue - if this variable is used a lot by other projects, >> than this commit is probably ok - though looks ugly. But if there is just >> one >> project which uses it, than it's probably better to break API and keep it >> clean and use same variable for C & C++ programs. > > For bisecting, just hold libdrm at the new version and bisect in 2d, > unless your initial test of old+old vs old+new of each component points > at libdrm (in which case, hold the 2d driver old and bisect across > libdrm). > > New drivers do require new symbols, but libdrm is API and ABI stable, > exactly so that people can bisect successfully.
Ok - I made a closer look at the problem - and bisected for a reason my current Xorg server shows black screen for older version of Intel driver. It looks like the key issue is some API change in Xorg related to this Intel driver commit: 8700673157fdd3a87ad5150f2f30823261fec519 (Adapt glyphs for changes in devPrivates API, Jun 7 2010, Chris Wilson) This is effectively the oldest version of Intel driver which currently seems to work with my (recently upgraded) xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.9.0-7.fc15.x86_64. It seems like cherry-picking to make this usable for older version of Intel git tree seems to be very complicated so doing bisect looks like very hard task in this case. I'm open to some ideas how could I eventually try to resolve/help with my fullscreen bug (id=26937). Anyway this seems to show that keeping API stable at one small library and breaking it in Xorg server itself doesn't make things better after all.... Is there any other way (except essentially completely reinstalling my whole system and trying to figure out which combination of Xorg and driver still works ok for full screen??) Would it help to post some /sys prints which would show why the screen is locked in 'fullscreen' picture and there is no way to restore it back ? Zdenek ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Automate Storage Tiering Simply Optimize IT performance and efficiency through flexible, powerful, automated storage tiering capabilities. View this brief to learn how you can reduce costs and improve performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/dell-sfdev2dev -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
