On 4/6/23 4:30 PM, Randolph Sapp wrote:
On 4/6/23 16:25, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 03:58:41PM -0500, Andrew Davis via
lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
On 4/6/23 2:46 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 02:28:47PM -0500, Andrew Davis via
lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
Previously the virtual/gpudriver provider would point to the kernel-mode
driver, which would cause Mesa libraries to depend on those and not the
user-mode driver. It is the user-mode driver that should depend on the
kernel-mode driver, not the other way around. The logical dependency
chain should be:
No, umlibs already has lots of virtual providers to choose from - virtual/egl,
virtual/gles and even virtual/mesa. And virtual/gpudriver was specifically
added to point to a kernel-mode driver - rogue-driver or sgx-km.
But none of these virtual providers actually point to the umlibs anymore,
those all point to Mesa.
Ah, right...
So, flipping the dependency chain is probably the correct change, but changing
what virtual/gpudriver means seems wrong.
Not sure what the issue is with changing what this virtual provider means.
It is our creation that no one else uses, it exists today only as a flag to
tell our Mesa bbappend which backend to choose.
It seems confusing - the kernel-mode for Rogue has the word "driver" in it.
If it's not being used anywhere else any longer, and it should point to
user-mode part now, why not also rename it to, let's say, virtual/gpulibs?
For GPU drivers, they are always two part drivers, so both mode drivers are
"drivers". In SGX we use "UM/KM" instead of "umlib/driver", we could always
rename the Rogue recipes if it's more clear. Since both are parts of the
"gpudriver" I still don't see an issue with pointing to either with that
label.
If a rename like "virtual/umlibs" makes it easier then I also have no
issue doing that.
How does Imagination Tech call this proprietary piece?
They just refer to the whole bag of software as the DDK. No specific
terminology for the components. Even if there was it, wouldn't apply here,
unfortunately, as this is specifically our packaged version. But no, they don't
even give us a hint to create a naming convention here.
In the DDK they just call the UM side without a postfix, and the KM
side with "_km". So maybe "driver" and "driver_km", but as you say
it doesn't much matter here.
Andrew
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#16336):
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/16336
Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/98112282/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
