On 2 February 2017 at 17:26, Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> wrote: > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 9:15:47 AM PST Chad Versace wrote: >> 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. > > Me too... Fwiw the patch was correct, just that the behaviour did no match the expectations ;-) But that was fixed so, everything is back to normal.
Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
