I'm not completely sure what you're saying, but doesn't drm_base_types.h (now drm_basic_types.h) make things robust to header order? The patch is in another email. You can also see it here: https://github.com/jpark37/linux/commit/0cc8ae750bfd9eab7e31c7de6aa84f24682f4f18
Thanks,
James
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 12:51 AM Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:07:41 -0800
James Park <james.park@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I could adjust the block to look like this:
>
> #ifdef DRM_FOURCC_STANDALONE
> #if defined(__linux__)
> #include <linux/types.h>
> #else
> #include <stdint.h>
> typedef uint32_t __u32;
> typedef uint64_t __u64;
> #endif
> #else
> #include "drm.h"
> #endif
>
> Alternatively, I could create a new common header to be included from both
> drm.h and drm_fourcc.h, drm_base_types.h or something like that:
>
> #ifdef DRM_FOURCC_STANDALONE
> #include "drm_base_types.h"
> #else
> #include "drm.h"
> #endif
Hi,
my point is, any solution relying on DRM_FOURCC_STANDALONE will fail
sometimes, because there is no reason why userspace would *not* #define
DRM_FOURCC_STANDALONE. Hence, #ifdef DRM_FOURCC_STANDALONE is
completely moot, you have to make the headers work in any include
order when DRM_FOURCC_STANDALONE is defined anyway.
Thanks.
pq
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 7:58 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:12 AM Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 21:45:14 +0100
> > > Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 7:55 PM James Park <james.park@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The trailing underscore for DRM_FOURCC_STANDALONE_ isn't
> > > > > intentional, right? Should I put all the integer types, or just the
> > > > > ones that are used in that file?
> > > >
> > > > Yeah that trailing _ just slipped in. And I'd just do the types
> > > > already used. I don't think anything else than __u32 (for drm fourcc)
> > > > and __u64 (for drm modifier) is needed.
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > can that create conflicts if userspace first includes drm_fourcc.h and
> > > then drm.h?
> > >
> > > I would find it natural to userspace have generic headers including
> > > drm_fourcc.h and then DRM-specific C-files including drm.h as well
> > > (through libdrm headers). I think Weston might already do this.
> > >
> > > The generic userspace (weston) header would obviously #define
> > > DRM_FOURCC_STANDALONE, because it is used by non-DRM C-files as well.
> >
> > Hm yes that would break. I guess we could just include the linux types
> > header for this. And I guess on windows you'd need to have that from
> > somewhere. Or we just require that users of the standalone header pull
> > the right header or defines in first?
> > -Daniel
> > --
> > Daniel Vetter
> > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > http://blog.ffwll.ch
> >
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
