[PATCH 0/8] Upstreaming the Android build and misc fixes

[Gore, Tim]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch] On Behalf Of Daniel
> Vetter
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 4:22 PM
> To: Emil Velikov
> Cc: Daniel Vetter; Gore, Tim; dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> 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 at lists.freedesktop.org
> > >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
> > >
> >
> 
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch