> -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Daniel > Vetter > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 4:22 PM > To: Emil Velikov > Cc: Daniel Vetter; Gore, Tim; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Upstreaming the Android build and misc fixes > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 01:01:19PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: > > On 28/07/14 08:07, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 03:48:53AM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: > > >> A few updates: > > >> > > >> - Naming the headers lists *_HEADERS caused autohell to hate us. > > >> Renamed to *_H_FILES > > >> - Including the platform Android.mk files individually is not the > > >> right way to do. One needs to construct an array/list of Android.mks and > include it. > > >> > > >> - The series including the above fixes can be found in branch > > >> fixes+android over at https://github.com/evelikov/libdrm. > > > > > > Adding Tim Gore who's working on Android.mk support for i-g-t from > > > our side and probably knows whom to poke for the intel side of > > > things for libdrm Android ports. > > > -Daniel > > > > > Thank you Daniel, > > > > In case it was not clear enough, some of these patches are taken from > > android-ia/external/drm. The very same are written by Intel employees > > AFAICT > > :) Would be great to hear if anyone is against the idea of getting > > Android.mks in the canonical repo. > > Oh, that's kinda why I want to drag the relevant people in from Intel's side. > Responsibility for Android builds have shifted around a bit the past few years > and Intel is big, so I'm trying to get hold off the right person. No success thus > far :( > > But personally I want this, just need to make sure that our own Android guys > see it and can start to help out. Occasionally it takes a while until they dare to > walk out of their hidings ;-) -Daniel On the whole these look fine. Jon Bloomfield seemed happy with the overall idea. 3 comments. 1) Patch 3 didn't apply cleanly, I assume because it was based on a different branch (ie not master), but the difference was trivial. 2) The Android makefiles as they are will not build within the android tree. I am Trying to get them to work at the moment. 3) Depending on which Android tree you have, the resulting libdrm may or may not Work in there. I don't think the latest intel android tree is compatible with the Upstream libdrm. Tim > > > > > > -Emil > > > > >> > > >> -Emil > > >> > > >> On 27/07/14 19:25, Emil Velikov wrote: > > >>> Hello list, > > >>> > > >>> Recently I've had a go at the Anroid builds and I felt ... > > >>> inspired that there are (at least) two downstream repositories > > >>> that have the relevant Android build, yet all of them use 6+month old > libdrm. > > >>> Making even builds a pain in the neck :'( > > >>> > > >>> Are there any objections if we get the android build upstream ? > > >>> AFAICS it's nicely isolated from everything else + I've managed to > > >>> reuse all the source/headers lists. > > >>> > > >>> Note that the series lacks a couple of patches from the downstream > > >>> repos, yet adds support for radeon, nouveau and freedreno :) > > >>> > > >>> The missing fixes are - s/mmap/mmap64/, dma-bufs support + other > > >>> intel specific "hacks". If people are happy with the series then > > >>> we can take a look at the final bits. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Cheers, > > >>> Emil > > >>> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> dri-devel mailing list > > >> dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > > > > > > > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
