On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 01:58:52PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Jeff McGee <jeff.mcgee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 08:37:30AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 04:41:02PM -0700, jeff.mcgee@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> > From: Jeff McGee <jeff.mcgee@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > > >> > tests/core_getparams needs the new libdrm interfaces for > >> > querying subslice and EU counts. > >> > > >> > For: VIZ-4636 > >> > Signed-off-by: Jeff McGee <jeff.mcgee@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > --- > >> > configure.ac | 2 +- > >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac > >> > index 16d6a2e..88a1c3d 100644 > >> > --- a/configure.ac > >> > +++ b/configure.ac > >> > @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ if test "x$GCC" = "xyes"; then > >> > fi > >> > AC_SUBST(ASSEMBLER_WARN_CFLAGS) > >> > > >> > -PKG_CHECK_MODULES(DRM, [libdrm_intel >= 2.4.52 libdrm]) > >> > +PKG_CHECK_MODULES(DRM, [libdrm_intel >= 2.4.60 libdrm]) > >> > >> Please don't and instead copypaste the new structs/defines with a local_ > >> prefix like we do it for all the other new igt testcases. Forcing libdrm > >> to get updated for igt all the time can get annoying fast. > >> -Daniel > >> > > In this case I'm trying to exercise new API functions in libdrm which > > wrap the GETPARAM ioctl. Would you rather me bypass the wrapper to > > avoid requiring updated libdrm? I can do that, but it fails to test the > > complete path that client would use. > > > Am I missing something, or does 2.4.60 not exist yet? > > That said dependency bumps for igt seem like less of an issue than > dependency bumps for mesa.. I mean if you are using igt you are > probably on the latest anyways.. I'm not sure why Daniel is so > concerned about that.. > > (but dependency bumps to something that doesn't exist yet should > perhaps be avoided) > > BR, > -R > Hi Rob. This igt change is contigent upon my libdrm changes which would in fact bump that version to 2.4.60 after adding an API. That change is also posted and waiting review. I guess I should have stated that dependency here to begin with. http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2015-March/061101.html Jeff > > > -Jeff > > > >> > PKG_CHECK_MODULES(PCIACCESS, [pciaccess >= 0.10]) > >> > PKG_CHECK_MODULES(OVERLAY_XVLIB, [xv x11 xext dri2proto >= 2.6], enable_overlay_xvlib=yes, enable_overlay_xvlib=no) > >> > PKG_CHECK_MODULES(OVERLAY_XLIB, [cairo-xlib dri2proto >= 2.6], enable_overlay_xlib=yes, enable_overlay_xlib=no) > >> > -- > >> > 2.3.0 > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Intel-gfx mailing list > >> > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx > >> > >> -- > >> Daniel Vetter > >> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > >> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Beignet mailing list > >> Beignet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/beignet > > _______________________________________________ > > dri-devel mailing list > > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
