On 2018-07-25 17:56, Rob Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 8:43 PM, Tanmay Shah <tanmay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 2018-07-25 17:33, Tanmay Shah wrote:
On 2018-07-24 15:21, Eric Anholt wrote:
Tanmay Shah <tanmay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 2018-07-24 12:19, Eric Anholt wrote:
Tanmay Shah <tanmay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.
--
Tanmay Shah
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
