Re: DRM kernel source broken/incomplete

On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 11:24:43PM +0000, Alan Hourihane wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 06:17:50PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 05:12:29PM +0000, Alan Hourihane wrote:
>> >On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 11:59:15AM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:40:42PM +0000, Alan Hourihane wrote:
>> >> >On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 11:32:56AM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
>> >> >> It looks like the DRM kernel source in xc/extras/drm is broken and
>> >> >> incomplete, especially for BSD platforms.  The Linux version only
>> >> >> appears to build for a narrow range of kernels, and this either
>> >> >> needs to be fixed, or the minimum kernel requirements enforced in
>> >> >> the Makefile.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Perhaps we'll have to roll back to an older version that does build?
>> >> >
>> >> >I suspect pulling in a newer snapshot would be better, although it's
>> >> >a little more complicated now because the drm has split out support
>> >> >for linux 2.4 and 2.6 kernels is separate subdirectories.
>> >> 
>> >> Does the build automatically figure out which to use based on the
>> >> kernel version, and what range of kernels has it been verified on?
>> > 
>> >No.
>> 
>> Any imports/updates need to address our requirements in this regard.
>
>If we import the current DRM trunk code, there are three linux directories.
>
>1. linux 		for 2.4 kernels (monolithic)
>2. linux-2.6		for 2.6 kernels (monolithic)
>3. linux-core		for 2.6 kernels with modular drm.ko and <driver>.ko
>
>and two for bsd
>
>1. bsd			monolithic
>2. bsd-core		modular as above
>
>The -core are the new ones going forward and which I believe has been
>merged in linux 2.6.11.
>
>So, for now the linux-2.6, linux and bsd directories are the ones to stick
>with for stability. But things are changing.
>
>There'll be necessary build tweaks to select which directories are needed.

At this point in our release cycle, the priorities are:

  1st: It builds/runs and is reasonably stable on a good range of platforms.
  2nd: It supports as many DRI features as possible consistent with the
       first priority.

I don't think that even changing from the existing single Linux directory
to two different kernel-specific directories is appropriate at this point
in our release cycle.  The time for such a change was before the feature
freeze.

If what we have now is too broken to be fixed without major structural
changes, then it will need to be rolled back.

David