[PATCH] libdrm: Convert to Android.mk to Android.bp

Eric Engestrom eric.engestrom at intel.com
Wed Sep 25 10:39:09 UTC 2019

On Tuesday, 2019-09-24 23:09:08 -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 4:30 PM John Stultz <john.stultz at linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 3:24 PM Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org> wrote:
> > > Trying to maintain something that works across more than 3 releases or
> > > so is painful. I don't think android-x86 folks have the bandwidth to
> > > maintain things older than that *and* update to newer versions. So I
> > > think only supporting the n latest releases is good.
> > >
> > > Are .bp files for master/Q compatible back to N (or O)? IIRC, at least
> > > for the first couple of releases with .bp files, they seemed to have
> > > incompatible changes.
> >
> > I think there have possibly been some incompatible changes, as I know
> > early w/ bp files things were more in flux. That said, there haven't
> > been many changes to the libdrm bp files since the conversion was
> > first done in 2017 (so Android O). I'll checkout N and validate so I
> > can provide a more concrete assurance.
> Ah. Crud. You're right. The bp syntax has shifted enough over time to
> cause problems w/ the current file when building against older Android
> releases.   N falls over pretty hard, and O and even P have issues w/
> "recovery_available: ", and "prebuilt_etc" syntax.  So my proposed
> commit message mischaracterizes the state of older builds. Apologies!
> I'll try to reach out to the android devs to see if there's any sort
> of compat magic that can be done to keep things working on older
> versions. That said, I'm still torn, as without this the current
> libdrm/master code is broken with AOSP/master and Q.  Its frustrating
> we have to have this seemingly exclusive trade off.
> I'm curious if folks might be willing to consider something like an
> upstream branch to preserve the build bits that work with prior
> Android releases? Or any other ideas?

Is _not_ deleting Android.mk an option?

That would have the obvious cost of duplicating the build system
maintenance effort, but if that's the only way to not drop support for
everything before Q...

(fwiw, my ack only applies with "reasonable" support of previous
versions :] )

More information about the dri-devel mailing list