On 2018-07-25 17:56, Rob Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 8:43 PM, Tanmay Shah tanmay@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 2018-07-25 17:33, Tanmay Shah wrote:
On 2018-07-24 15:21, Eric Anholt wrote:
Tanmay Shah tanmay@codeaurora.org writes:
On 2018-07-24 12:19, Eric Anholt wrote:
Tanmay Shah tanmay@codeaurora.org writes:
> file derived from msm-next kernel uapi header.
Unless there's an exception from Dave, I believe uapi headers in libdrm and Mesa should be direct copies from "make headers_install" on the drm-next branch. How does this compare to that?
The header file is identical as in drm-next kernel.
Great, let's say "drm-next" instead to make that clear. Also, looks like freedreno/msm/msm_drm.h should probably get removed in favor of this?
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
+Rob Clark
Thanks Eric, I will send v2 with suggested changes.
freedreno/msm/msm_drm.h is owned by Rob, I am not sure if we need it there or not. I would let Rob comment on this.
We require msm_drm.h in include/drm/ directory to export GEM ioctls so other modules such as gbm can use it. Other platforms have similar strategy.
Sorry, Actually +Rob Clark
yeah, we should remove the duplicate header in libdrm.. so far it hasn't been exported outside of libdrm_freedreno since it was unneeded.. but as long as libdrm_freedreno still compiles properly with the moved header, I'm fine with it. There might be some include path tweaking required, not sure..
(and PS. "ownership" is not a thing upstream.. if it lives in the same git tree and changing it doesn't break the build, it is not off-limits ;-))
BR, -R
Thanks, Rob.