Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] configure: Only require libdrm 2.4.75 for intel.

2017-02-03 Thread Emil Velikov 
On 2 February 2017 at 03:22, Dave Airlie  wrote:
> On 2 February 2017 at 13:09, Emil Velikov  wrote:
>> On 2 February 2017 at 02:58, Michel Dänzer  wrote:
>>> On 02/02/17 09:10 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
 On 1 February 2017 at 23:28, Vinson Lee  wrote:
> Fixes: b8acb6b17981 ("configure: Require libdrm >= 2.4.75")
> Signed-off-by: Vinson Lee 
 Are you sure that's correct ?

 Afaict the follow-up commits make use of updated i915_drm.h which
 should be provided by your distro's libdrm-dev package.
>>>
>>> This seems to be at the heart of the confusion here: Is i915_drm.h part
>>> of libdrm or of libdrm_intel? I'd argue it's the latter, and the fact
>>> that some or even all downstreams ship a single package with all libdrm*
>>> headers is irrelevant. That package also contains all the libdrm_*.pc
>>> files, so Vinson's patch works as intended either way.
>>>
>> Are you saying that there's a single -dev package [libdrm-dev] for
>> everything libdrm* related ?
>> That sounds like a broken distro package... which would explain some
>> of the assumptions/discussions on #dri-devel :-)
>
> That is how all distros ship it.
>
Agreed. Seemingly I'm one of the few (the only) person silly enough
not to follow the broken(?) approach used by distros.
Either way - I'll add locals hacks to be compatible :-)

-Emil
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] configure: Only require libdrm 2.4.75 for intel.

2017-02-02 Thread Chad Versace 
On Thu 02 Feb 2017, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 7:35:20 AM PST Chad Versace wrote:
> > On Thu 02 Feb 2017, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > On 2 February 2017 at 13:09, Emil Velikov  
> > > wrote:
> > > > On 2 February 2017 at 02:58, Michel Dänzer  wrote:
> > > >> On 02/02/17 09:10 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> > > >>> On 1 February 2017 at 23:28, Vinson Lee  wrote:
> > >  Fixes: b8acb6b17981 ("configure: Require libdrm >= 2.4.75")
> > >  Signed-off-by: Vinson Lee 
> > > >>> Are you sure that's correct ?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Afaict the follow-up commits make use of updated i915_drm.h which
> > > >>> should be provided by your distro's libdrm-dev package.
> > > >>
> > > >> This seems to be at the heart of the confusion here: Is i915_drm.h part
> > > >> of libdrm or of libdrm_intel? I'd argue it's the latter, and the fact
> > > >> that some or even all downstreams ship a single package with all 
> > > >> libdrm*
> > > >> headers is irrelevant. That package also contains all the libdrm_*.pc
> > > >> files, so Vinson's patch works as intended either way.
> > > >>
> > > > Are you saying that there's a single -dev package [libdrm-dev] for
> > > > everything libdrm* related ?
> > > > That sounds like a broken distro package... which would explain some
> > > > of the assumptions/discussions on #dri-devel :-)
> > > 
> > > That is how all distros ship it.
> > 
> > As Dänzer said, "Vinson's patch works as intended either way".
> > 
> > If this small patch fixes Vinson's problem; breaks no one's setup; and
> > causes no maintenance burden; then the patch is good.
> > 
> > Is anyone *opposed* to Vinson's patch? (It's hard to tell because all of
> > the discussion about what distro's do, don't do, and should do).
> 
> I'm not opposed.  Normally, this is what we do.
> 
> Bumping LIBDRM_INTEL_REQUIRED when we need a new i915_drm.h seems
> totally reasonable to me.  I don't know of any setup that ships
> multiple libdrm (why?!)...but it seems like if you have a new enough
> libdrm_intel, you'll have a new enough i915_drm.h.
> 
> That said...this case is a /little/ different...because we're
> introducing a dependency on libsync.h, which is part of core libdrm.
> I don't think it's an Intel-specific file, though it is currently only
> used in i965...
> 
> I don't know that it makes much difference.

The libsync.h problem should be solved by imirkin's patch
"[PATCH 1/2] configure: libdrm is a single package, no split different 
versions".
It effectively makes the libdrm requirement the max of LIBDRM_REQURIED
and LIBDRM_${DRIVER}_REQUIRED.
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] configure: Only require libdrm 2.4.75 for intel.

2017-02-02 Thread Kenneth Graunke 
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 7:35:20 AM PST Chad Versace wrote:
> On Thu 02 Feb 2017, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > On 2 February 2017 at 13:09, Emil Velikov  wrote:
> > > On 2 February 2017 at 02:58, Michel Dänzer  wrote:
> > >> On 02/02/17 09:10 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> > >>> On 1 February 2017 at 23:28, Vinson Lee  wrote:
> >  Fixes: b8acb6b17981 ("configure: Require libdrm >= 2.4.75")
> >  Signed-off-by: Vinson Lee 
> > >>> Are you sure that's correct ?
> > >>>
> > >>> Afaict the follow-up commits make use of updated i915_drm.h which
> > >>> should be provided by your distro's libdrm-dev package.
> > >>
> > >> This seems to be at the heart of the confusion here: Is i915_drm.h part
> > >> of libdrm or of libdrm_intel? I'd argue it's the latter, and the fact
> > >> that some or even all downstreams ship a single package with all libdrm*
> > >> headers is irrelevant. That package also contains all the libdrm_*.pc
> > >> files, so Vinson's patch works as intended either way.
> > >>
> > > Are you saying that there's a single -dev package [libdrm-dev] for
> > > everything libdrm* related ?
> > > That sounds like a broken distro package... which would explain some
> > > of the assumptions/discussions on #dri-devel :-)
> > 
> > That is how all distros ship it.
> 
> As Dänzer said, "Vinson's patch works as intended either way".
> 
> If this small patch fixes Vinson's problem; breaks no one's setup; and
> causes no maintenance burden; then the patch is good.
> 
> Is anyone *opposed* to Vinson's patch? (It's hard to tell because all of
> the discussion about what distro's do, don't do, and should do).

I'm not opposed.  Normally, this is what we do.

Bumping LIBDRM_INTEL_REQUIRED when we need a new i915_drm.h seems
totally reasonable to me.  I don't know of any setup that ships
multiple libdrm (why?!)...but it seems like if you have a new enough
libdrm_intel, you'll have a new enough i915_drm.h.

That said...this case is a /little/ different...because we're
introducing a dependency on libsync.h, which is part of core libdrm.
I don't think it's an Intel-specific file, though it is currently only
used in i965...

I don't know that it makes much difference.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] configure: Only require libdrm 2.4.75 for intel.

2017-02-02 Thread Chad Versace 
On Thu 02 Feb 2017, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 2 February 2017 at 13:09, Emil Velikov  wrote:
> > On 2 February 2017 at 02:58, Michel Dänzer  wrote:
> >> On 02/02/17 09:10 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> >>> On 1 February 2017 at 23:28, Vinson Lee  wrote:
>  Fixes: b8acb6b17981 ("configure: Require libdrm >= 2.4.75")
>  Signed-off-by: Vinson Lee 
> >>> Are you sure that's correct ?
> >>>
> >>> Afaict the follow-up commits make use of updated i915_drm.h which
> >>> should be provided by your distro's libdrm-dev package.
> >>
> >> This seems to be at the heart of the confusion here: Is i915_drm.h part
> >> of libdrm or of libdrm_intel? I'd argue it's the latter, and the fact
> >> that some or even all downstreams ship a single package with all libdrm*
> >> headers is irrelevant. That package also contains all the libdrm_*.pc
> >> files, so Vinson's patch works as intended either way.
> >>
> > Are you saying that there's a single -dev package [libdrm-dev] for
> > everything libdrm* related ?
> > That sounds like a broken distro package... which would explain some
> > of the assumptions/discussions on #dri-devel :-)
> 
> That is how all distros ship it.

As Dänzer said, "Vinson's patch works as intended either way".

If this small patch fixes Vinson's problem; breaks no one's setup; and
causes no maintenance burden; then the patch is good.

Is anyone *opposed* to Vinson's patch? (It's hard to tell because all of
the discussion about what distro's do, don't do, and should do).
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] configure: Only require libdrm 2.4.75 for intel.

2017-02-01 Thread Dave Airlie 
On 2 February 2017 at 13:09, Emil Velikov  wrote:
> On 2 February 2017 at 02:58, Michel Dänzer  wrote:
>> On 02/02/17 09:10 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>> On 1 February 2017 at 23:28, Vinson Lee  wrote:
 Fixes: b8acb6b17981 ("configure: Require libdrm >= 2.4.75")
 Signed-off-by: Vinson Lee 
>>> Are you sure that's correct ?
>>>
>>> Afaict the follow-up commits make use of updated i915_drm.h which
>>> should be provided by your distro's libdrm-dev package.
>>
>> This seems to be at the heart of the confusion here: Is i915_drm.h part
>> of libdrm or of libdrm_intel? I'd argue it's the latter, and the fact
>> that some or even all downstreams ship a single package with all libdrm*
>> headers is irrelevant. That package also contains all the libdrm_*.pc
>> files, so Vinson's patch works as intended either way.
>>
> Are you saying that there's a single -dev package [libdrm-dev] for
> everything libdrm* related ?
> That sounds like a broken distro package... which would explain some
> of the assumptions/discussions on #dri-devel :-)

That is how all distros ship it.

Dave.
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] configure: Only require libdrm 2.4.75 for intel.

2017-02-01 Thread Emil Velikov 
On 2 February 2017 at 02:58, Michel Dänzer  wrote:
> On 02/02/17 09:10 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 1 February 2017 at 23:28, Vinson Lee  wrote:
>>> Fixes: b8acb6b17981 ("configure: Require libdrm >= 2.4.75")
>>> Signed-off-by: Vinson Lee 
>> Are you sure that's correct ?
>>
>> Afaict the follow-up commits make use of updated i915_drm.h which
>> should be provided by your distro's libdrm-dev package.
>
> This seems to be at the heart of the confusion here: Is i915_drm.h part
> of libdrm or of libdrm_intel? I'd argue it's the latter, and the fact
> that some or even all downstreams ship a single package with all libdrm*
> headers is irrelevant. That package also contains all the libdrm_*.pc
> files, so Vinson's patch works as intended either way.
>
Are you saying that there's a single -dev package [libdrm-dev] for
everything libdrm* related ?
That sounds like a broken distro package... which would explain some
of the assumptions/discussions on #dri-devel :-)

-Emil
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] configure: Only require libdrm 2.4.75 for intel.

2017-02-01 Thread Michel Dänzer 
On 02/02/17 09:10 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 1 February 2017 at 23:28, Vinson Lee  wrote:
>> Fixes: b8acb6b17981 ("configure: Require libdrm >= 2.4.75")
>> Signed-off-by: Vinson Lee 
> Are you sure that's correct ?
> 
> Afaict the follow-up commits make use of updated i915_drm.h which
> should be provided by your distro's libdrm-dev package.

This seems to be at the heart of the confusion here: Is i915_drm.h part
of libdrm or of libdrm_intel? I'd argue it's the latter, and the fact
that some or even all downstreams ship a single package with all libdrm*
headers is irrelevant. That package also contains all the libdrm_*.pc
files, so Vinson's patch works as intended either way.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer   |   http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] configure: Only require libdrm 2.4.75 for intel.

2017-02-01 Thread Emil Velikov 
On 2 February 2017 at 00:38, Vinson Lee  wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Emil Velikov  wrote:
>> On 1 February 2017 at 23:28, Vinson Lee  wrote:
>>> Fixes: b8acb6b17981 ("configure: Require libdrm >= 2.4.75")
>>> Signed-off-by: Vinson Lee 
>> Are you sure that's correct ?
>>
>> Afaict the follow-up commits make use of updated i915_drm.h which
>> should be provided by your distro's libdrm-dev package.
>> Or perhaps it used some new libdrm_intel functionality - can you list
>> what flags up on your end ?
>>
>> -Emil
>
> Yes, this allows me to build non-Intel drivers again with older
> libdrm. Do any drivers other than Intel drivers need libdrm 2.4.75?

Sounds like you misread what I said.

As of
commit 358661c794573b9a361309d477fe09880773ef73
Author: Chad Versace 
Date:   Fri Jan 13 10:46:48 2017 -0800

i965: Add intel_screen::has_fence_fd

This bool maps to I915_PARAM_HAS_EXEC_FENCE_FD.

we use the i915_drm.h define I915_PARAM_HAS_EXEC_FENCE. The latter is
provided by libdrm commit

commit a3d715ee14b29d2680ceaf44955679205795140c
Author: Chris Wilson 
Date:   Fri Jan 27 10:39:10 2017 +

Import uapi/i915_drm.h from v4.10-rc5-950-g152d5750dda9

To sync with "drm/i915: Support explicit fencing for execbuf"

i915_drm.h _must_ be part of your libdrm-dev package. If not, it's
broken and you should report to your distro.

Thanks
Emil
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] configure: Only require libdrm 2.4.75 for intel.

2017-02-01 Thread Vinson Lee 
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Emil Velikov  wrote:
> On 1 February 2017 at 23:28, Vinson Lee  wrote:
>> Fixes: b8acb6b17981 ("configure: Require libdrm >= 2.4.75")
>> Signed-off-by: Vinson Lee 
> Are you sure that's correct ?
>
> Afaict the follow-up commits make use of updated i915_drm.h which
> should be provided by your distro's libdrm-dev package.
> Or perhaps it used some new libdrm_intel functionality - can you list
> what flags up on your end ?
>
> -Emil

Yes, this allows me to build non-Intel drivers again with older
libdrm. Do any drivers other than Intel drivers need libdrm 2.4.75?
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] configure: Only require libdrm 2.4.75 for intel.

2017-02-01 Thread Emil Velikov 
On 1 February 2017 at 23:28, Vinson Lee  wrote:
> Fixes: b8acb6b17981 ("configure: Require libdrm >= 2.4.75")
> Signed-off-by: Vinson Lee 
Are you sure that's correct ?

Afaict the follow-up commits make use of updated i915_drm.h which
should be provided by your distro's libdrm-dev package.
Or perhaps it used some new libdrm_intel functionality - can you list
what flags up on your end ?

-Emil
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] configure: Only require libdrm 2.4.75 for intel.

2017-02-01 Thread Vinson Lee 
Fixes: b8acb6b17981 ("configure: Require libdrm >= 2.4.75")
Signed-off-by: Vinson Lee 
---
 configure.ac | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
index 92339b4..d4302bf 100644
--- a/configure.ac
+++ b/configure.ac
@@ -67,10 +67,10 @@ OPENCL_VERSION=1
 AC_SUBST([OPENCL_VERSION])
 
 dnl Versions for external dependencies
-LIBDRM_REQUIRED=2.4.75
+LIBDRM_REQUIRED=2.4.66
 LIBDRM_RADEON_REQUIRED=2.4.56
 LIBDRM_AMDGPU_REQUIRED=2.4.63
-LIBDRM_INTEL_REQUIRED=2.4.61
+LIBDRM_INTEL_REQUIRED=2.4.75
 LIBDRM_NVVIEUX_REQUIRED=2.4.66
 LIBDRM_NOUVEAU_REQUIRED=2.4.66
 LIBDRM_FREEDRENO_REQUIRED=2.4.74
-- 
2.10.2

___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev