| Message ID | 20140723223626.GA759@bwidawsk.net |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Headers | show |
Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> wrote in news:20140723223626.GA759@bwidawsk.net: > In the most ideal case, we could just bump to the recently released .913 > and have everything /just/ work. Chris has fixed 2 bugs that Bernd's > series also attempted to fix. Of course that runs the risk of invoking > the wrath that caused the original .912 revert. Hi, yesterday I tried .914, without success: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.uclibc.buildroot/90194 Then I reverted back to .911, which works again without problems. Are you able to do run-time tests on your machine with .914? Regards, Bernd
Dear Ben Widawsky, On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:36:27 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > Hi. The second patch, .912 bump has been nak'd already by Bernd (I > missed this before my ping). Coincidentally, Bernd also fixed the > composite extension compilation error in buildroot (differently than I > did). Chris Wilson, the Intel DDX maintainer has fixed the issue > meanwhile. > > I would recommend backporting the xf86-video-intel patch instead of the > patch Bernd submitted. Wiggle handled all the conflicts. I am not sure > if it will apply to .907 (the current version). The other option is to > take Bernd's patch, and revert it when you finally get to the fixed > upstream version. > > In the most ideal case, we could just bump to the recently released .913 and > have everything /just/ work. Chris has fixed 2 bugs that Bernd's series also > attempted to fix. Of course that runs the risk of invoking the wrath that > caused the original .912 revert. > > That all came out more complicated than it should have. I apologize. I am > pasting the patch I wiggled as an example. Hopefully that helps make sense. Have all issues you had been resolved? I still have this old e-mail "marked" as to be handled here, so I'm wondering what is the status of this. Could you check if the latest Buildroot git master works for you? Thanks! Thomas
On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 11:10:06AM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Dear Ben Widawsky, > > On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:36:27 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > Hi. The second patch, .912 bump has been nak'd already by Bernd (I > > missed this before my ping). Coincidentally, Bernd also fixed the > > composite extension compilation error in buildroot (differently than I > > did). Chris Wilson, the Intel DDX maintainer has fixed the issue > > meanwhile. > > > > I would recommend backporting the xf86-video-intel patch instead of the > > patch Bernd submitted. Wiggle handled all the conflicts. I am not sure > > if it will apply to .907 (the current version). The other option is to > > take Bernd's patch, and revert it when you finally get to the fixed > > upstream version. > > > > In the most ideal case, we could just bump to the recently released .913 and > > have everything /just/ work. Chris has fixed 2 bugs that Bernd's series also > > attempted to fix. Of course that runs the risk of invoking the wrath that > > caused the original .912 revert. > > > > That all came out more complicated than it should have. I apologize. I am > > pasting the patch I wiggled as an example. Hopefully that helps make sense. > > Have all issues you had been resolved? I still have this old e-mail > "marked" as to be handled here, so I'm wondering what is the status of > this. Could you check if the latest Buildroot git master works for you? > > Thanks! > > Thomas Hi Thomas. I won't be able to check for a few days, but since you are currently at 2.99.917, I am confident this specific issue will go away. I keep putting off updating what I have since it works :P
diff --git a/package/x11r7/xdriver_xf86-video-intel/xdriver_xf86-video-intel-0001-sna-dri2-Protect-compsiteext.h-include-with-build-ch.patch b/package/x11r7/xdriver_xf86-video-intel/xdriver_xf86-video-intel-0001-sna-dri2-Protect-compsiteext.h-include-with-build-ch.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a82c482 --- /dev/null +++ b/package/x11r7/xdriver_xf86-video-intel/xdriver_xf86-video-intel-0001-sna-dri2-Protect-compsiteext.h-include-with-build-ch.patch @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ +From f17f0808ab3de6f65a3eedf5548e7b314b7a182f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> +Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 07:40:34 +0100 +Subject: [PATCH] sna/dri2: Protect compsiteext.h include with build check + +We shouldn't include calls to the composite extension if it has not been +built. + +Reported-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> +Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> +--- + src/sna/sna_dri2.c | 7 ++++--- + 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/src/sna/sna_dri2.c b/src/sna/sna_dri2.c +index 1baaf2b..1edf98e 100644 +--- a/src/sna/sna_dri2.c ++++ b/src/sna/sna_dri2.c +@@ -48,8 +48,9 @@ USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. + #include <xf86drm.h> + #include <i915_drm.h> + #include <dri2.h> +-#if XORG_VERSION_CURRENT >= XORG_VERSION_NUMERIC(1,12,99,901,0) ++#if XORG_VERSION_CURRENT >= XORG_VERSION_NUMERIC(1,12,99,901,0) && defined(COMPOSITE) + #include <compositeext.h> ++#define CHECK_FOR_COMPOSITOR + #endif + + #if DRI2INFOREC_VERSION < 2 +@@ -2164,7 +2165,7 @@ get_current_msc(struct sna *sna, DrawablePtr draw, xf86CrtcPtr crtc) + return draw_current_msc(draw, crtc, ret); + } + +-#if !XORG_CAN_TRIPLE_BUFFER && XORG_VERSION_CURRENT >= XORG_VERSION_NUMERIC(1,12,99,901,0) ++#if !XORG_CAN_TRIPLE_BUFFER && defined(CHECK_FOR_COMPOSITOR) + static Bool find(pointer value, XID id, pointer cdata) + { + return TRUE; +@@ -2187,7 +2188,7 @@ static int use_triple_buffer(struct sna *sna, ClientPtr client, bool async) + #if XORG_CAN_TRIPLE_BUFFER + DBG(("%s: triple buffer enabled, using FLIP_THROTTLE\n", __FUNCTION__)); + return FLIP_THROTTLE; +-#elif XORG_VERSION_CURRENT >= XORG_VERSION_NUMERIC(1,12,99,901,0) ++#elif defined(CHECK_FOR_COMPOSITOR) + /* Hack: Disable triple buffering for compositors */ + { + struct sna_client *priv = sna_client(client); +-- +2.0.2 +