[Mesa-dev] [RFC][PATCH 4/5] Android.mk: Add option to use vendor version of mesa
john.stultz at linaro.org
Thu Jul 26 17:38:09 UTC 2018
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 6:46 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 July 2018 at 20:52, John Stultz <john.stultz at linaro.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:42 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 25 July 2018 at 00:21, John Stultz <john.stultz at linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> From: Yong Yao <yong.yao at intel.com>
>>>> This is a forward port of a patch from the AOSP/master branch:
>>>> Which allows boards to provide their own custom copy of mesa.
>>> Thanks for sorting these out John.
>>> My understanding was that when a custom project repo is used one
>>> handles that in the device manifest. Roughly as:
>>> - foo.xml -> contains vast majority of the git repos with associated tags/etc
>>> - local.xml -> removes any repo/project from ^^, adds new one
>>> Is that no longer the case, or I simply misremember how Android does things?
>> So, I'm not aware of the specific history behind this patch. And I
>> can't speak for Google, there has been a general push via the Treble
>> efforts to standardize the Android system image, and to push vendors
>> to keep any device specific bits into their own device directory. So
>> there is a strong disincentive to modify projects in AOSP and in order
>> to include things like devboards into AOSP, the push has been to limit
>> any device specific changes to only the device directory git tree.
>> So while one can technically still replace projects with local repos
>> (and this is very useful for development!), I think they do not want
>> folks doing this for shipping devices.
> Hmm using the word "local" brought some assumptions that were never made.
> AFAICT the remove/add project manifest combo can be used local
> changes/testing as well as for "shipping devices".
> Can it not?
>> We are trying to make sure device support is pushed upstream to fdo,
>> and then align AOSP's mesa to that, but one could imagine a board that
>> doesn't have support upstream in mesa, and provides its own copy of
>> mesa in the device directory. This patch allows the build to override
>> the default mesa project with the vendor provided mesa.
> Since the vendor will already need to add the project (git repo etc),
> what is the blocker from removing the existing one beforehand?
> Last I've tried - the repo tool gives you a nice and clear
> warning/error message.
> There is one case where this patch is a must. If repo forbids removing
> "core" Android projects via the manifest.
I'm not saying the repo tool at all forbids removing/replacing entries
in the manifest. Its just a tool.
I'm saying that if someone is replacing git trees that are part of the
system image in a shipping device, my understanding is they are likely
going to have more problems with treble compliance. There are probably
technical loopholes folks can get through and still do it, but I think
generally its becoming frowned upon.
Its possible, but I doubt they would chose to enforce this policy via
the repo tool.
Regardless, I'm not sure why such a trivial change to the Android.mk
that the Android developers found useful is cause for much objection,
but this one seems more trouble then its worth, so I'll drop it.
More information about the mesa-dev