On 5 June 2017 at 12:00, Jan Vesely <jan.ves...@rutgers.edu> wrote: > On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 01:39 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: >> On 2 June 2017 at 17:34, Jan Vesely <jan.ves...@rutgers.edu> wrote: >> > On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 17:22 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: >> > > On 2 June 2017 at 16:34, Jan Vesely <jan.ves...@rutgers.edu> wrote: >> > > > On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 12:19 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: >> > > > > On 1 June 2017 at 21:28, Jan Vesely <jan.ves...@rutgers.edu> wrote: >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Vesely <jan.ves...@rutgers.edu> >> > > > > > --- >> > > > > > Hi guys, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > this is the first step towards dropping libamd_common dependency. >> > > > > > It's based on Emil's patches 3/5 and 4/5. >> > > > > > Enabling opencl still falls back to the old way of requiring >> > > > > > libamd_common. >> > > > > > I'll try to address that in the next step (no time estimate, feel >> > > > > > free to beat me to it). I think we can drop part of those functions >> > > > > > rather than just copying them. >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > AFAICT one still need the rest of my series, correct? >> > > > >> > > > kind of, 1/5 is mostly unrelated. 2,3/5 should be replaced by this one. >> > > > 4/5 is needed, >> > > > and 5/5 seems to be not applicable since ac_gpu_info.c >> > > > still needs the header. >> > > > >> > > >> > > Hmm indeed. I seems to have misread your patch. >> > > Which makes me wonder if you've tested the patch as I mentioned earlier: >> > > - (re)move amdgpu.h >> > > - apply mesa patches (be that any of my, your and other mix) >> > > - build r300 and/or r600, w/o radeonsi >> > > - the the above combo a try with and w/o opencl >> > > >> > > I'm leaning that things will fail to build? >> > >> > This patch only removes dependence on libamd_common unless you enable >> > OpenCL. >> >> Right - this thing here needs to be fixed. Rather than >> pressuring/annoying you to "fix it now", I'll kindly suggest opting >> for the neutering series as an intermediate step. We already had five >> (iirc) separate reports about this :-( > > I'm once again puzzled by this. the posted patches remove dependence > and fix the problem for the common (no OpenCL) configuration. I don't > see how 'removed r600g+clover' is better than 'r600g+clover needs > libdrm_amdgpu'. > Former builds, admittedly slightly neutered, while the latter does not. Having software fail to build for a day or two is ~OK, but approx. 2 weeks is less so.
Another option is be error out at configure time. Either one is fine, as long as you get a descriptive message why things are as-is. -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
