[PATCH] libdrm: intel/Android.mk: Filter libdrm_intel library requirements on x86/x86_64

[Emil Velikov]

On 16 March 2018 at 14:35, Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14 March 2018 at 16:47, John Stultz <john.stultz at linaro.org> wrote:
>>> When building AOSP after updating libdrm project to the
>>> freedesktop/master branch, I've seen the following build errors:
>>>
>>> external/libdrm/intel/Android.mk: error: libdrm_intel
>>> (SHARED_LIBRARIES android-arm64) missing libpciaccess
>>> (SHARED_LIBRARIES android-arm64) You can set
>>> ALLOW_MISSING_DEPENDENCIES=true in your environment if this is
>>> intentional, but that may defer real problems until later in the
>>> build.
>>>
>>> Using ALLOW_MISSING_DEPENDENCIES=true when building allows
>>> things to function properly, but is not ideal.
>>>
>>> So basically, while I'm not including the libdrm_intel package
>>> into the build, just the fact that the Android.mk file references
>>> libpciaccess which isn't a repo included in AOSP causes the build
>>> failure.
>>>
>>> So it seems we need some sort of conditional filter in the
>>> Android.mk to skip over it if we're not building for intel.
>>>
>> Could swear I asked a few times already, but cannot see an answer.
>> Why/how does this happen - did you forget to set BOARD_GPU_DRIVERS?
>>
>> One way to avoid this kind of clutches like is to have meta drivers
>> like "arm-all" or "x86-all".
>>
>> Some examples:
>>  - the Mesa i965/anv drivers will not build for arm
>
> They used to...
>
There are still

Fair enough. Guess the compiler produced


>>  - the Mesa vc4 (even vc5?) driver has some perf. sensitive arm/thumb assembly
>>  - building the following combinations is waste of resources -
>> i915/i965/i915g on !x86, freedreno/etnaviv/imx on !arm
>
> I disagree. To use the kernel as an example, it is very valuable to
> have your driver code build for x86 allmodconfig even if it is
> something that never runs on x86 because lots of people and bots build
> that.
>
> If you require having ARM cross compilers and environment setup to
> build test "arm" drivers in mesa/libdrm, then you've really cut down
> the number of people doing build testing. Just look at Android build
> testing. I can count the number of people that do that on one hand.
>
FWIW I had suggested the same thing (build test everything) a few
times in the past.
For one reason or another the wider Mesa community did not agree :-\

>> Without something like my earlier suggestion all of the above will
>> need to be special cased. And more are to come with time :-\
>>
>> That is, unless I'm loosing my marbles. In which case don't be shy and
>> let me know, please.
>
> I think this has been beaten to death and will apply it. It's an easy
> revert if someone has an itch to come up with something better.
>
You have to admit though - evaluating dependencies for something that
is not build is fairly counter-intuitive.

Regardless - yes, I had a dull moment.
I deeply appreciate the patience and help.

-Emil