Sedat Dilek sedat.dilek at googlemail.com
Mon Jan 3 12:33:15 PST 2011

2011/1/3 Pekka Paalanen <pq at iki.fi>:
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 10:51:26 +0100
> Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> DRIVER_DATE is not maintained or upgraded on changes in many drm
>> drivers.
>> For example radeon has one DRIVER_DATE for User and Kernel
>> ModeSetting driver, this makes no sense as UMS and KMS driver
>> have different versions. And of course this all increases
>> maintenance, too. For radeon it is enough to bump
>> Furthermore, I also removed CORE_DATE.
>> With radeon-KMS my dmesg looks now like this:
>> [   12.328937] [drm] Initialized drm 1.1.0
>> [   13.144019] [drm] Initialized radeon 2.8.0 for 0000:01:00.0 on
>> minor 0
>> Signed-off-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek at gmail.com>
>> Note: Tested with radeon RV250 (KMS) and linux-next
>> (next-20101221).
> ...
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_drv.c
>> index bb17057..50abca3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_drv.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_drv.c
>> @@ -416,11 +416,6 @@ static struct drm_driver driver = {
>>       .name = DRIVER_NAME,
>>       .desc = DRIVER_DESC,
>> -#ifdef GIT_REVISION
>> -     .date = GIT_REVISION,
>> -#else
>> -     .date = DRIVER_DATE,
>> -#endif
>>       .major = DRIVER_MAJOR,
>>       .minor = DRIVER_MINOR,
>>       .patchlevel = DRIVER_PATCHLEVEL,
> Just a reminder, why this hunk was there in the first place:
> it is quite usual for the Nouveau DRM to be compiled out-of-tree,
> from different kernel git sources than the hosting kernel.
> This was an attempt to record in the kernel log which exact
> revision is being used. GIT_REVISION is defined by the Makefile
> that is recommended to be used for out-of-tree building.
> I didn't check if this patch has been accepted, but I believe
> maintaining differences between nouveau/linux-2.6 and upstream
> kernel trees is a burden.
> Is there a better way to add revision information to an
> out-of-tree built kernel module?
> Or maybe this is not useful at all?
> Cheers.
> --
> Pekka Paalanen
> http://www.iki.fi/pq/

Happy new 2011 to you all (and I apologize for my rants in the next few lines)!

[ NOTE: The mentionned patch is not complete, requires further
removals also in libdrm and a rebuild of the ddx. ]

I have a new patchset (as series and as a single patch) to remove
driver-date and core-date from kernel-drm and one patch to do so for
libdrm (see attachments).

This stuff is tested and running (while I am writing to you) with
linux-next (next-20101231), a cleaned-up libdrm-2.4.23 and a rebuilt
ati/radeon ddx.

But works-for-me means not these patches work fine with other kernels,
libdrm or ddx than in my development environment.
So, please feel free to test them and give feedback (best is dri-devel

( If desired I can resend the patchset/patch(es) to dri-devel ML - in
a discussion thread such patches go down. )

[ Instructions ]

1. Rebuild kernel with my kernel-drm patchset
2. Jump to the new kernel
3. Rebuild libdrm with my libdrm-patch (be aware you have the
correct/cleanedp-up drm.h)
4. Rebuild your ddx (in my case xf86-video-ati) against new libdrm

Another reason for me to get rid of the driver-date stuff: It is not
checked for example in the ddx (but for major|minor|patchlevel
BTW, my mesa and xserver are from official Debian/experimental.

Unfortunately, diverse emails of me have been unanswered to update the
driver-date for radeon (for a collection of mine see [1],[2],[3]).

I cannot speak for nouveau in kernel-drm, but the GIT version stuff
was not clear to me.

More information about the dri-devel mailing list