[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Bump libdrm-intel dependency library to a newer version that support softpin.
Emil Velikov
emil.l.velikov at gmail.com
Thu Jul 14 18:54:59 UTC 2016
On 14 July 2016 at 17:49, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 05:29:55PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> Hi Marius,
>>
>> Just double-checking - this is an i-g-t patch, isn't it ?
>>
>> On 14 July 2016 at 11:39, Marius Vlad <marius.c.vlad at intel.com> wrote:
>> > Required by commit 2603b98ca (aubdump: Support softpin bos).
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Marius Vlad <marius.c.vlad at intel.com>
>> > CC: Kristian Høgsberg Kristensen <kristian.h.kristensen at intel.com>
>> > ---
>> > configure.ac | 2 +-
>> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
>> > index f05bcb0..ade9756 100644
>> > --- a/configure.ac
>> > +++ b/configure.ac
>> > @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ if test "x$GCC" = "xyes"; then
>> > fi
>> > AC_SUBST(ASSEMBLER_WARN_CFLAGS)
>> >
>> > -PKG_CHECK_MODULES(DRM, [libdrm_intel >= 2.4.64 libdrm])
>> > +PKG_CHECK_MODULES(DRM, [libdrm_intel >= 2.4.68 libdrm])
>> Yes please. As you do that one can nuke most/all the "define LOCAL_"
>> and "struct local_" (in lib/ioctl_wrappers.h)
>> and replace with with the official symbols. A very nice plus imho ;-)
>
> Please don't. It makes running on older installations even more
> cumbersome.
Slightly confused here: are you against the libdrm_intel bump, or the
removal of the local symbols ?
Admittedly sometimes distros don't bother/refuse to update libdrm
which could be an issue in the former case. Although if the package
(with all the definitions) is compulsory, how would that cause an
issue ?
Genuine question here, not trying to be smart/cheeky/etc.
Thanks
Emil
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list