On 16 March 2018 at 14:35, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 14 March 2018 at 16:47, John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> When building AOSP after updating libdrm project to the >>> freedesktop/master branch, I've seen the following build errors: >>> >>> external/libdrm/intel/Android.mk: error: libdrm_intel >>> (SHARED_LIBRARIES android-arm64) missing libpciaccess >>> (SHARED_LIBRARIES android-arm64) You can set >>> ALLOW_MISSING_DEPENDENCIES=true in your environment if this is >>> intentional, but that may defer real problems until later in the >>> build. >>> >>> Using ALLOW_MISSING_DEPENDENCIES=true when building allows >>> things to function properly, but is not ideal. >>> >>> So basically, while I'm not including the libdrm_intel package >>> into the build, just the fact that the Android.mk file references >>> libpciaccess which isn't a repo included in AOSP causes the build >>> failure. >>> >>> So it seems we need some sort of conditional filter in the >>> Android.mk to skip over it if we're not building for intel. >>> >> Could swear I asked a few times already, but cannot see an answer. >> Why/how does this happen - did you forget to set BOARD_GPU_DRIVERS? >> >> One way to avoid this kind of clutches like is to have meta drivers >> like "arm-all" or "x86-all". >> >> Some examples: >> - the Mesa i965/anv drivers will not build for arm > > They used to... > There are still Fair enough. Guess the compiler produced >> - the Mesa vc4 (even vc5?) driver has some perf. sensitive arm/thumb assembly >> - building the following combinations is waste of resources - >> i915/i965/i915g on !x86, freedreno/etnaviv/imx on !arm > > I disagree. To use the kernel as an example, it is very valuable to > have your driver code build for x86 allmodconfig even if it is > something that never runs on x86 because lots of people and bots build > that. > > If you require having ARM cross compilers and environment setup to > build test "arm" drivers in mesa/libdrm, then you've really cut down > the number of people doing build testing. Just look at Android build > testing. I can count the number of people that do that on one hand. > FWIW I had suggested the same thing (build test everything) a few times in the past. For one reason or another the wider Mesa community did not agree :-\ >> Without something like my earlier suggestion all of the above will >> need to be special cased. And more are to come with time :-\ >> >> That is, unless I'm loosing my marbles. In which case don't be shy and >> let me know, please. > > I think this has been beaten to death and will apply it. It's an easy > revert if someone has an itch to come up with something better. > You have to admit though - evaluating dependencies for something that is not build is fairly counter-intuitive. Regardless - yes, I had a dull moment. I deeply appreciate the patience and help. -Emil _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
