Re: [meta-ti][wrynose/master][PATCH V2] mesa-pvr: Migration from v24.0.1 -> v25.2.8

On 6/11/26 8:23 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 09:17:37PM -0500, Ryan Eatmon via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
>>
>> On 6/10/2026 5:58 PM, Antonios Christidis wrote:
>>> Dear Ryan Denys,
>>>
>>>
>>> Let me know your thoughts on the overall patch. I am particularly
>>> interested on your opinions on the following change:
>>>
>>> On 6/10/26 5:51 PM, Antonios Christidis via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
>>>> BSP_MESA_PVR_VERSION:bsp-ti-6_18: = "2%"
>> So... I think what this does is establish the pattern for which
>> version it will match to.  And then from that pattern it will pick
>> the highest version.
>>
>> So for ALL 6_18 builds it will probably choose 25 and never 24.
>> Which is not what you want.
>>
>> ... I think ...
>>
>> We have never tried to mix versions like this in the past, so I'm
>> not 100% sure what the best course is.
>>
>> Likely a mixture of the override based on machine needs to be in
>> there. And for that I'm thinking you might need an extra variable.
>>
>> BSP_MESA_PVR_VERSION_6_18 ?= "25%"
>> BSP_MESA_PVR_VERSION_6_18:am57 = "24%"
>> BSP_MESA_PVR_VERSION_6_18:ti33 = "24%"
>> etc...
>>
>> BSP_MESA_PVR_VERSION:bsp-ti-6_18 = "${BSP_MESA_PVR_VERSION_6_18}"
>>
>>
>> Something along those lines?  That would be the most clear for
>> people to follow as well.
> It was done differently in this patch:
>
> mesa-pvr 24 was maked compatible only with SGX platforms, while mesa-pvr 25
> was marked compatible with the rest of the platforms. Also not ideal though.
>
I think Ryan's idea is easier to follow, compared to the flow I have 
included in this series.

Another way of going about this (I'm not saying this is easier and/or a 
better method) would be to create 2 MACHINEOVERIDES. On a per platform 
level (ex: am62pxx.inc) to add ```MACHINEOVERRIDES =. "rogue-core:"```, 
then within ti-bsp ```BSP_MESA_PVR_VERSION:bsp-ti-6_18:rogue-core = 
"25%"``` picking the right version when paired against a sgx-core override.

An added benefit to this, the new overrides would cut down on the need 
for duplicate variables tracking Rogue vs SGX (examples: 
BSP_SGX_DRIVER_VERSION, BSP_ROGUE_DRIVER_VERSION).

A downside to this flow, tracking what is currently included 
within MACHINEOVERRIDES , describing what architecture of GPU core 
doesn't really fit well with pre-existing overrides.


Let me know what you think?

>>> I wish there was a way to use syntax like
>>> "BSP_MESA_PVR_VERSION:bsp-ti-6_18 = "24%|25%" or even
>>> "24.0.1|25.2.8". Is there a better way of enabling this logic ?
>>>
>>> Also already aware of the extra ":" post-pended to the variable, I
>>> can send a v3 if that's all the feedback.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>>
>>> Antonios
>>>