Change-Id: I24b6624789d1a9dc0fd3a446b0e6f21ed5183ff2
Signed-off-by: Samuel Li
---
radeon/Makefile.am | 6 +++
radeon/Makefile.sources | 6 ++-
radeon/radeon_asic_id.c | 106
radeon/radeon_asic_id.h | 37 +
4 files changed,
Hi Sam,
do you also have a Mesa patch showing how the new APIs will be used?
Without seeing that, some minor comments below.
On 01/07/17 04:25 AM, Samuel Li wrote:
>
> +//#include
> +//#include
Remove these lines.
> +#include "util/util_asic_id.h"
Patch 1 adds the util directory to incl
tions and statements.
OK.
Sam
> -Original Message-
> From: Michel Dänzer [mailto:mic...@daenzer.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2017 5:43 AM
> To: Li, Samuel
> Cc: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; dri-de...@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH libdrm 2/2] radeon:
Hi Samuel,
On 30 June 2017 at 20:25, Samuel Li wrote:
> Change-Id: I24b6624789d1a9dc0fd3a446b0e6f21ed5183ff2
> Signed-off-by: Samuel Li
> ---
> radeon/Makefile.am | 6 +++
> radeon/Makefile.sources | 6 ++-
> radeon/radeon_asic_id.c | 106
>
, 2017 7:03 AM
> To: Li, Samuel
> Cc: amd-gfx mailing list ; ML dri-devel de...@lists.freedesktop.org>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH libdrm 2/2] radeon: use asic id table to get chipset name
>
> Hi Samuel,
>
> On 30 June 2017 at 20:25, Samuel Li wrote:
> > Change-Id: I24b66
On 5 July 2017 at 22:31, Li, Samuel wrote:
>> - above all, as-is make check will fail
> Right, I did not check that.
>
>> - keeping the radeon API symmetrical to the amdgpu one would a good idea
> The issue is Radeon does not have a struct similar to amdgpu_device_handle.
Attach it to analogous
> -Original Message-
> From: amd-gfx [mailto:amd-gfx-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf
> Of Emil Velikov
> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 5:21 AM
> To: Li, Samuel
> Cc: ML dri-devel; amd-gfx mailing list
> Subject: Re: [PATCH libdrm 2/2] radeon: use asic id tabl
On 6 July 2017 at 13:46, Deucher, Alexander wrote:
>> Attach it to analogous primitive?
>
> Radeon libdrm is much different than amdgpu. There is no analog.
>
Upon a closer look, indeed there isn't. Must have gotten confused earlier.
>>
>> > I think the current radeon API is simpler. Maybe a fo