[Mesa-stable] [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] gallium/targets: fix bool setting on BE architectures

[Michel Dänzer]

On 18/04/17 09:52 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:21 AM, Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote:
>> On 18/04/17 01:02 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:00 AM, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>> val_bool and val_int are in a union. val_bool gets the first byte, which
>>>> happens to work on LE when setting via the int, but breaks on BE. By
>>>> setting the value properly, we are able to use DRI3 on BE architectures.
>>>> Tested by running glxgears with a NV34 in a G5 PPC.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu>
>>>> Cc: mesa-stable at lists.freedesktop.org
>>>> ---
>>>>  src/gallium/auxiliary/pipe-loader/pipe_loader_drm.c | 8 ++++----
>>>>  src/gallium/targets/pipe-loader/pipe_i915.c         | 2 +-
>>>>  src/gallium/targets/pipe-loader/pipe_msm.c          | 2 +-
>>>>  src/gallium/targets/pipe-loader/pipe_nouveau.c      | 2 +-
>>>>  src/gallium/targets/pipe-loader/pipe_r300.c         | 2 +-
>>>>  src/gallium/targets/pipe-loader/pipe_r600.c         | 2 +-
>>>>  src/gallium/targets/pipe-loader/pipe_radeonsi.c     | 2 +-
>>>>  7 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/src/gallium/auxiliary/pipe-loader/pipe_loader_drm.c b/src/gallium/auxiliary/pipe-loader/pipe_loader_drm.c
>>>> index aba814b..a4f5cfc 100644
>>>> --- a/src/gallium/auxiliary/pipe-loader/pipe_loader_drm.c
>>>> +++ b/src/gallium/auxiliary/pipe-loader/pipe_loader_drm.c
>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,13 @@ static const struct pipe_loader_ops pipe_loader_drm_ops;
>>>>
>>>>  #ifdef GALLIUM_STATIC_TARGETS
>>>>  static const struct drm_conf_ret throttle_ret = {
>>>> -   DRM_CONF_INT,
>>>> -   {2},
>>>> +   .type = DRM_CONF_INT,
>>>> +   .val.val_int = 2,
>>>>  };
>>
>> This (whole hunk?) looks unrelated, should be in a separate patch. For
>> the rest,
> 
> It's stylistically related, since it's 2 lines above the share_fd_ret
> definition, and I thought it'd look odd to have the two structs
> defined in the two different styles.

Makes sense, but it's still not logically the same change as the one
described in the commit log. So it should really be a separate patch.


> Please confirm that you want me to leave this hunk out.

No, you can keep my R-b even for the patch as is.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer               |               http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast             |             Mesa and X developer