From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from comal.ext.ti.com (comal.ext.ti.com [198.47.26.152]) by arago-project.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8542E529AA for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 19:24:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dlelxv90.itg.ti.com ([172.17.2.17]) by comal.ext.ti.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id s15JOfUM014209 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:24:41 -0600 Received: from DFLE72.ent.ti.com (dfle72.ent.ti.com [128.247.5.109]) by dlelxv90.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s15JOQAs003590 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:24:26 -0600 Received: from dflp32.itg.ti.com (10.64.6.15) by DFLE72.ent.ti.com (128.247.5.109) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.342.3; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:24:26 -0600 Received: from localhost (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by dflp32.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s15JOQ4w006133; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:24:26 -0600 Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 14:24:26 -0500 From: Denys Dmytriyenko To: "Etheridge, Darren" Message-ID: <20140205192425.GU18784@edge> References: <1391197703-29424-1-git-send-email-chase.maupin@ti.com> <7D46E86EC0A8354091174257B2FED1015993D972@DLEE11.ent.ti.com> <20140204005129.GE18784@edge> <7D46E86EC0A8354091174257B2FED1015994658F@DLEE11.ent.ti.com> <1A80A2FD7F34484786E5DF71F3968B6941E8B45D@DLEE10.ent.ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1A80A2FD7F34484786E5DF71F3968B6941E8B45D@DLEE10.ent.ti.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: "meta-arago@arago-project.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] branding-glsdk: pin to GLSDK libdrm version X-BeenThere: meta-arago@arago-project.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 19:24:42 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline All, What is the consensus here? I see that GLSDK uses own libdrm which is based on 2.4.41, but is fetched from git.ti.com (the recipe is in meta-ti), while for AM335x mostly we'd like to update libdrm to the latest upstream... Is use of branding an optimal solution here? -- Denys On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:43:21AM -0500, Etheridge, Darren wrote: > Actually devices like AM335x (DRA7x works with existing libdrm version, > although 2.4.41 is a year old now): > > Two reasons for needing the version bump: > 1) tilcdc DRM device is supported (this commit - > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/commit/?id=6e8f868e034531b66a215e4e6d978b43b58b92d0) > 2) Pixel type of XB24 is supported in modetest (this is the correct pixel > ordering for AM335x hardware added here: > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/commit/?id=fa2925aa342158037ef972f3ef095442fb1fe430) > > > Darren > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Maupin, Chase > > Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 7:17 AM > > To: Hingolikar, Mrinmayee; Dmytriyenko, Denys; Etheridge, Darren > > Cc: meta-arago@arago-project.org > > Subject: RE: [meta-arago] [PATCH 1/2] branding-glsdk: pin to GLSDK libdrm > > version > > > > Mrinmayee, > > > > What is in your 2.4.41 version that makes you need to pin there. I ask > > because Darren has reported needing a newer version to work properly with > > devices like DRA7xx. > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Hingolikar, Mrinmayee > > >Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 5:05 AM > > >To: Dmytriyenko, Denys; Maupin, Chase > > >Cc: meta-arago@arago-project.org > > >Subject: RE: [meta-arago] [PATCH 1/2] branding-glsdk: pin to GLSDK > > >libdrm version > > > > > >Hi all, > > > > > >The libdrm in GLSDK is based on the 2.4.41 version from upstream. > > >A preferred version is required since a 2.4.42 version is present > > >in oe-core. > > > > > > > > >Regards, > > >Mrinmayee > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Dmytriyenko, Denys > > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 6:21 AM > > >> To: Maupin, Chase > > >> Cc: meta-arago@arago-project.org; Hingolikar, Mrinmayee > > >> Subject: Re: [meta-arago] [PATCH 1/2] branding-glsdk: pin to > > >GLSDK > > >> libdrm version > > >> > > >> Ping > > >> > > >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 07:50:39PM +0000, Maupin, Chase wrote: > > >> > Mrinmayee, > > >> > > > >> > Can you comment on the below need for 2.4.41? > > >> > > > >> > >-----Original Message----- > > >> > >From: Maupin, Chase > > >> > >Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 1:48 PM > > >> > >To: meta-arago@arago-project.org > > >> > >Cc: Maupin, Chase > > >> > >Subject: [PATCH 1/2] branding-glsdk: pin to GLSDK libdrm > > >version > > >> > > > > >> > >* The GLSDK prefers to use the 2.4.41 version of libdrm from > > >> > > meta-ti so pin that version in the branding file. > > >> > > > > >> > >Signed-off-by: Chase Maupin > > >> > >--- > > >> > > .../conf/distro/include/branding-glsdk.inc | 4 > > >++++ > > >> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > >> > > > > >> > >diff --git a/meta-arago-distro/conf/distro/include/branding- > > >> > >glsdk.inc b/meta-arago-distro/conf/distro/include/branding- > > >> > >glsdk.inc > > >> > >index d1c30f3..b33b21d 100644 > > >> > >--- a/meta-arago-distro/conf/distro/include/branding- > > >glsdk.inc > > >> > >+++ b/meta-arago-distro/conf/distro/include/branding- > > >glsdk.inc > > >> > >@@ -2,3 +2,7 @@ > > >> > > > > >> > > # Use the SDK supported kernel and kernel version > > >> > > PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel = "linux-ti-glsdk" > > >> > >+ > > >> > >+# Set the PREFERRED_VERSION of libdrm to the glsdk version > > >for > > >> > >the > > >> > >+# glsdk branded builds > > >> > >+PREFERRED_VERSION_libdrm = "2.4.41" > > >> > >-- > > >> > >1.7.9.5 > > >> > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > >> > meta-arago mailing list > > >> > meta-arago@arago-project.org > > >> > http://arago-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/meta-arago