mesa-dri: add extra dri drivers
PATCH 1/1 mesa-dri: add extra dri drivers
From: Ian Reinhart Geiser <[email protected]>
On x86 the ATI and NVidia drm drivers are valid to build. Currently there are _append_x86 and _append_x64 lines that explicitly add i915 and i965. For consistency I think that the ATI and NVidia drm driver should be added. In classic these were tunable via the machine configuration files. I would argue we should go back to that so we should make the DRIDRIVERS field something that can be defined there.
* Made the DRIDRIVERS field overridable.
* Add ATI and NVidia DRI drivers to the build list for x86 and x86_64.
--- meta/recipes-graphics/mesa/mesa-dri.inc | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
meta/recipes-graphics/mesa/mesa-dri.inc +3 -3
@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@ DEPENDS += "libdrm expat udev" X11_DEPS += "dri2proto" -DRIDRIVERS = "swrast" -DRIDRIVERS_append_x86 = ",i915,i965" -DRIDRIVERS_append_x86-64 = ",i915,i965" +DRIDRIVERS ?= "swrast" +DRIDRIVERS_append_x86 = ",i915,i965,nouveau,r200,radeon" +DRIDRIVERS_append_x86-64 = ",i915,i965,nouveau,r200,radeon" EXTRA_OECONF += "--disable-gallium --without-gallium-drivers" EXTRA_OECONF += "--enable-dri --with-dri-drivers=${DRIDRIVERS}"
Signature · 1 line
1.7.9.5
Quoted 11 lines · On 30 January 2013 13:26, <[email protected]> wrote:
On x86 the ATI and NVidia drm drivers are valid to build. Currently there are
_append_x86and_append_x64lines that explicitly add i915 and i965. For consistency I think that the ATI and NVidia drm driver should be added. In classic these were tunable via the machine configuration files. I would argue we should go back to that so we should make the DRIDRIVERS field something that can be defined there.* Made the DRIDRIVERS field overridable.
* Add ATI and NVidia DRI drivers to the build list for x86 andx86_64.
I'm not sure why we need to make this machine-tunable - we currently build all drivers in libdrm (but split them between packages), so why not just enable all working DRI drivers in Mesa and split them between packages.
Machine configurations can pull in specific driver packages (or all of them) without making Mesa itself machine-specific.
Can you send a V2 without the conditional assignment (unless you have an argument for keeping it), with a commit message that just describes the patch.
Ross
Quoted 25 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: Burton, Ross [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:16 AM
To: Ian Geiser
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] mesa-dri: add extra dri driversQuoted 11 lines · On 30 January 2013 13:26, <[email protected]> wrote:
On x86 the ATI and NVidia drm drivers are valid to build. Currently there are
_append_x86and_append_x64lines that explicitly add i915 and i965. For consistency I think that the ATI and NVidia drm driver should be added. In classic these were tunable via the machine configuration files. I would argue we should go back to that so we should make the DRIDRIVERS field something that can be defined there.* Made the DRIDRIVERS field overridable.
* Add ATI and NVidia DRI drivers to the build list for x86 andx86_64.I'm not sure why we need to make this machine-tunable - we currently build all drivers in libdrm (but split them between packages), so why not just enable all working DRI drivers in Mesa and split them between packages.
Quoted 6 lines
Machine configurations can pull in specific driver packages (or all of them) without making Mesa itself machine-specific.
Can you send a V2 without the conditional assignment (unless you have an argument for keeping it), with a commit message that just describes the patch.
No, I was just extending what was there so I have no real preference. I will need to check if it impacts non-x86 builds. I do not think it will be a problem, since most non-x86 systems have their own GL implementations. I think it will just enable swrast on ones that are not x86. I will resubmit with it set to auto where it will only build the appropriate drivers after I test. Thanks!
Quoted 1 line · Ian Geiser
No, I was just extending what was there so I have no real preference. I will need to check if it impacts non-x86 builds. I do not think it will be a problem, since most non-x86 systems have their own GL implementations. I think it will just enable swrast on ones that are not x86. I will resubmit with it set to auto where it will only build the appropriate drivers after I test. Thanks!
In general explicitly stating things is preferred so the current arrangement works nicely, so just adding the extra drivers to the append lines is good.
Ross