Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 04/11] dri_interface: drop __NOT_HAVE_DRM_H magic
On 20 July 2015 at 19:36, Ian Romanick i...@freedesktop.org wrote: On 07/09/2015 01:12 PM, Emil Velikov wrote: On 9 July 2015 at 18:50, Ian Romanick i...@freedesktop.org wrote: On 07/08/2015 10:07 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov emil.l.veli...@gmail.com --- include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h | 11 --- 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h b/include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h index c827bb6..c0545b1 100644 --- a/include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h +++ b/include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h @@ -40,20 +40,9 @@ #ifndef DRI_INTERFACE_H #define DRI_INTERFACE_H -/* For archs with no drm.h */ -#if defined(__APPLE__) || defined(__CYGWIN__) || defined(__GNU__) -#ifndef __NOT_HAVE_DRM_H -#define __NOT_HAVE_DRM_H -#endif -#endif - -#ifndef __NOT_HAVE_DRM_H Shouldn't this get changed to use HAVE_LIBDRM as in later patches? I thought about that, but that depends on if the versions of xserver that we care about define it. From a quick look that is not the case for older xservers, on the other hand drm* users which explicitly include drm.h. If others don't mind when/if things break, I'm fine using HAVE_LIBDRM here. Two questions come to mind... 1. Which X server versions build? 2. How hard would it be to patch the broken versions to work? It seems like it should be pretty easy, right? If all of the versions that we think people actually care about work, then I don't think we should worry. So after testing the 1.12..1.17 branches, they all seem to work if we replace ifndef __NOT_HAVE_DRM_H with ifdef HAVE_LIBDRM. I'm a bit confused why we'd want to have it in the first place since nothing defines HAVE_LIBDRM in xserver plus the typedefs are ABI, as you've pointed out. Either way v2 with your suggestion is coming in a bit. Cheers, Emil ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 04/11] dri_interface: drop __NOT_HAVE_DRM_H magic
On 07/09/2015 01:12 PM, Emil Velikov wrote: On 9 July 2015 at 18:50, Ian Romanick i...@freedesktop.org wrote: On 07/08/2015 10:07 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov emil.l.veli...@gmail.com --- include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h | 11 --- 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h b/include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h index c827bb6..c0545b1 100644 --- a/include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h +++ b/include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h @@ -40,20 +40,9 @@ #ifndef DRI_INTERFACE_H #define DRI_INTERFACE_H -/* For archs with no drm.h */ -#if defined(__APPLE__) || defined(__CYGWIN__) || defined(__GNU__) -#ifndef __NOT_HAVE_DRM_H -#define __NOT_HAVE_DRM_H -#endif -#endif - -#ifndef __NOT_HAVE_DRM_H Shouldn't this get changed to use HAVE_LIBDRM as in later patches? I thought about that, but that depends on if the versions of xserver that we care about define it. From a quick look that is not the case for older xservers, on the other hand drm* users which explicitly include drm.h. If others don't mind when/if things break, I'm fine using HAVE_LIBDRM here. Two questions come to mind... 1. Which X server versions build? 2. How hard would it be to patch the broken versions to work? It seems like it should be pretty easy, right? If all of the versions that we think people actually care about work, then I don't think we should worry. I guess drm_context_t and drm_drawable_t are ABI, so they shouldn't ever change. It does feel a little icky to redefine them when not necessary. Yes it is rather nasty. Note that all of the junk is DRI1 stuff. I was thinking about nuking/moving it, but with the see the old dri loader new module, and vice versa topic still open, I've decided to leave thing as is. -Emil ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 04/11] dri_interface: drop __NOT_HAVE_DRM_H magic
On 07/08/2015 10:07 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov emil.l.veli...@gmail.com --- include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h | 11 --- 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h b/include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h index c827bb6..c0545b1 100644 --- a/include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h +++ b/include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h @@ -40,20 +40,9 @@ #ifndef DRI_INTERFACE_H #define DRI_INTERFACE_H -/* For archs with no drm.h */ -#if defined(__APPLE__) || defined(__CYGWIN__) || defined(__GNU__) -#ifndef __NOT_HAVE_DRM_H -#define __NOT_HAVE_DRM_H -#endif -#endif - -#ifndef __NOT_HAVE_DRM_H Shouldn't this get changed to use HAVE_LIBDRM as in later patches? I guess drm_context_t and drm_drawable_t are ABI, so they shouldn't ever change. It does feel a little icky to redefine them when not necessary. -#include drm.h -#else typedef unsigned int drm_context_t; typedef unsigned int drm_drawable_t; typedef struct drm_clip_rect drm_clip_rect_t; -#endif /** * \name DRI interface structures ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 04/11] dri_interface: drop __NOT_HAVE_DRM_H magic
On 9 July 2015 at 18:50, Ian Romanick i...@freedesktop.org wrote: On 07/08/2015 10:07 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov emil.l.veli...@gmail.com --- include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h | 11 --- 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h b/include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h index c827bb6..c0545b1 100644 --- a/include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h +++ b/include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h @@ -40,20 +40,9 @@ #ifndef DRI_INTERFACE_H #define DRI_INTERFACE_H -/* For archs with no drm.h */ -#if defined(__APPLE__) || defined(__CYGWIN__) || defined(__GNU__) -#ifndef __NOT_HAVE_DRM_H -#define __NOT_HAVE_DRM_H -#endif -#endif - -#ifndef __NOT_HAVE_DRM_H Shouldn't this get changed to use HAVE_LIBDRM as in later patches? I thought about that, but that depends on if the versions of xserver that we care about define it. From a quick look that is not the case for older xservers, on the other hand drm* users which explicitly include drm.h. If others don't mind when/if things break, I'm fine using HAVE_LIBDRM here. I guess drm_context_t and drm_drawable_t are ABI, so they shouldn't ever change. It does feel a little icky to redefine them when not necessary. Yes it is rather nasty. Note that all of the junk is DRI1 stuff. I was thinking about nuking/moving it, but with the see the old dri loader new module, and vice versa topic still open, I've decided to leave thing as is. -Emil ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
