On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 12:47 +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote: > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:32:05PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Timo Aaltonen <tjaal...@cc.hut.fi> wrote: > > > On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Bryce Harrington wrote: > > > > > >> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:56:11PM +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote: > > >>> We are therefore planning to upload a hybrid > > >>> 2.6.32 kernel containing the 2.6.33 drm backported. > > >> > > >> Btw, for bug report fiddling purposes, is there a reliable way to detect > > >> the drm version installed? The drm version does not show up in uname -a > > >> of course, and `dmesg|grep drm|grep 2\.6\.33` returns nothing (at least, > > >> on nouveau). > > >> > > >> (Basically I want a way to automatically distinguish between bug reports > > >> that were tested with the new 2.6.33 drm vs those that won't, so we can > > >> prioritize our attentions accordingly.) > > > > > > Isn't the kernel abi enough for that? -16 has the backport, anything > > > before that doesn't. > > > > Right but its still good to know a backport from which 2.6.33.y > > Fair point. Right now we have v2.6.33 straight. But I do see how we > might want some finer grain record of the version. I will look at where > we can expose that.
For prior art, Nouveau's upstream build captures the output of git-describe and displays it on module load. Feeding the git information into the kernel build & getting the other drm drivers to display the same information shouldn't be too hard.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Ubuntu-x mailing list Ubuntu-x@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-x