On Thu 02 Feb 2017, Emil Velikov wrote: > From: Emil Velikov <emil.veli...@collabora.com> > > They are versions of the respective libdrm package. They are _not_ the > version of libdrm[.so] required for driver X. > > Doing the latter will lead to combinatoric explosion and in all fairness > things will likely be broken most of the time. > > To make things even more confusing the kernel UAPI is provided by libdrm > itself. > > Cc: Vinson Lee <v...@freedesktop.org> > Cc: Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> > Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <emil.veli...@collabora.com> > --- > Ken, you/Chad have things spot on. Yet semes like other people struggle > deeply with these.
Actually, I agree with airlied and imirkin. I made a mistake when I bumped LIBDRM_REQUIRED. Anyway, I don't understand what the commit message nor the configure.ac comment is trying to say. The wording is too muddy and imprecise to make much sense. > --- > configure.ac | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac > index 92339b4a3f..e8e154b412 100644 > --- a/configure.ac > +++ b/configure.ac > @@ -67,6 +67,13 @@ OPENCL_VERSION=1 > AC_SUBST([OPENCL_VERSION]) > > dnl Versions for external dependencies > +dnl > +dnl The LIBDRM instances reference either the generic libdrm or the specific > +dnl specific libdrm-$hw. > +dnl They are _not_ "the min. libdrm required for dri/gallium/other driver > $foo." > +dnl > +dnl Note that the "basic" ABI for $hw -> $hw_drm.h is provided by libdrm > itself. > +dnl > LIBDRM_REQUIRED=2.4.75 > LIBDRM_RADEON_REQUIRED=2.4.56 > LIBDRM_AMDGPU_REQUIRED=2.4.63 > -- > 2.11.0 > > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev