[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] xf86-video-intel: Disable SNA without composite

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] xf86-video-intel: Disable SNA without composite

[Ben Widawsky]

SNA requires the composite extension. Fallback to UXA is the user has
decided not to add this. Ideally we could fall back to glamor, but that
was more work.

Cc: Bernd Kuhls <berndkuhls@hotmail.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
---
 .../xdriver_xf86-video-intel/xdriver_xf86-video-intel.mk | 16 +++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/package/x11r7/xdriver_xf86-video-intel/xdriver_xf86-video-intel.mk b/package/x11r7/xdriver_xf86-video-intel/xdriver_xf86-video-intel.mk
index 332de54..787b8fa 100644
--- a/package/x11r7/xdriver_xf86-video-intel/xdriver_xf86-video-intel.mk
+++ b/package/x11r7/xdriver_xf86-video-intel/xdriver_xf86-video-intel.mk
@@ -16,13 +16,23 @@ XDRIVER_XF86_VIDEO_INTEL_CONF_OPT = \
 	--enable-kms-only \
 	--disable-xvmc \
 	--disable-ums-only \
-	--enable-sna \
-	--disable-uxa \
-	--disable-glamor \
 	--disable-xaa \
 	--disable-dga \
 	--disable-async-swap
 
+ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_XLIB_LIBXCOMPOSITE),y)
+	XDRIVER_XF86_VIDEO_INTEL_CONF_OPT += \
+		--enable-sna \
+		--disable-uxa \
+		--disable-glamor
+else
+	XDRIVER_XF86_VIDEO_INTEL_CONF_OPT += \
+		--disable-sna \
+		--enable-uxa \
+		--disable-glamor
+endif
+
+
 XDRIVER_XF86_VIDEO_INTEL_DEPENDENCIES = xserver_xorg-server xproto_fontsproto xproto_randrproto xproto_renderproto xproto_xproto libdrm xlib_libpciaccess
 
 $(eval $(autotools-package))
-- 
2.0.1

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] xf86-video-intel: Bump version to 2.99.912

[Ben Widawsky]

Warning: I've only built this. Not run it.

Cc: Bernd Kuhls <berndkuhls@hotmail.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
---
 package/x11r7/xdriver_xf86-video-intel/xdriver_xf86-video-intel.mk | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/package/x11r7/xdriver_xf86-video-intel/xdriver_xf86-video-intel.mk b/package/x11r7/xdriver_xf86-video-intel/xdriver_xf86-video-intel.mk
index 787b8fa..82e6965 100644
--- a/package/x11r7/xdriver_xf86-video-intel/xdriver_xf86-video-intel.mk
+++ b/package/x11r7/xdriver_xf86-video-intel/xdriver_xf86-video-intel.mk
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 #
 ################################################################################
 
-XDRIVER_XF86_VIDEO_INTEL_VERSION = 2.99.907
+XDRIVER_XF86_VIDEO_INTEL_VERSION = 2.99.912
 XDRIVER_XF86_VIDEO_INTEL_SOURCE = xf86-video-intel-$(XDRIVER_XF86_VIDEO_INTEL_VERSION).tar.bz2
 XDRIVER_XF86_VIDEO_INTEL_SITE = http://xorg.freedesktop.org/releases/individual/driver
 XDRIVER_XF86_VIDEO_INTEL_LICENSE = MIT
-- 
2.0.1

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] xf86-video-intel: Bump version to 2.99.912

[Bernd Kuhls]

Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> wrote in 
news:1405661249-6506-2-git-send-email-ben at bwidawsk.net:

> Warning: I've only built this. Not run it.
> 
> Cc: Bernd Kuhls <berndkuhls@hotmail.com>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>

Hi,

the OpenELEC team reverted this version bump last month, reason unknown:
https://github.com/OpenELEC/OpenELEC.tv/commit/8f4fd1a758da169c95816de4dc5c50
1fa268746c

Therefore I currently stayed away from this release, please see my patch to 
bump version to its predecessor 2.99.911[1]. I am awaiting the next release 
of this driver and will test again, so for today: NAK.

Regards, Bernd

[1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/370975/

[Buildroot] [PATCH] sna/dri2: Protect compsiteext.h include with build check

[Ben Widawsky]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 07:40:34AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> 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>

This patch does not apply cleanly to .912. The wiggled patch does build.
With my earlier patch reverted.

If this patch will be in .913, and .913 is coming relatively soon, we
can ignore this entirely for buildroot and simply do a version bump to
.913 when its available.

Thanks.

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] xf86-video-intel: Bump version to 2.99.912

[Ben Widawsky]

Ping by request of patrickdp on IRC.

Note, I have a patch locally which applies to 2.99.912 (Chris' patch
only applied cleanly to master).

There are few options at this point:
1. Merge these two patches.
	This was tested before sending.
2. I can resend with the bump to 2.99.912 as the first patch, and then Chris' wiggled patch.
	I have this currently tested, and running.
3. Redo the patch for 2.99.907
	This is the most logical, but I haven't done it yet. It also
	requires two patches, one for .907, and one for .912 if update
	is desired there.
4. Wait until Chris releases 2.99.913 (or 3.0), and just bump to that.

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:27:29PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> Warning: I've only built this. Not run it.
> 
> Cc: Bernd Kuhls <berndkuhls@hotmail.com>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
> ---
>  package/x11r7/xdriver_xf86-video-intel/xdriver_xf86-video-intel.mk | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/package/x11r7/xdriver_xf86-video-intel/xdriver_xf86-video-intel.mk b/package/x11r7/xdriver_xf86-video-intel/xdriver_xf86-video-intel.mk
> index 787b8fa..82e6965 100644
> --- a/package/x11r7/xdriver_xf86-video-intel/xdriver_xf86-video-intel.mk
> +++ b/package/x11r7/xdriver_xf86-video-intel/xdriver_xf86-video-intel.mk
> @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
>  #
>  ################################################################################
>  
> -XDRIVER_XF86_VIDEO_INTEL_VERSION = 2.99.907
> +XDRIVER_XF86_VIDEO_INTEL_VERSION = 2.99.912
>  XDRIVER_XF86_VIDEO_INTEL_SOURCE = xf86-video-intel-$(XDRIVER_XF86_VIDEO_INTEL_VERSION).tar.bz2
>  XDRIVER_XF86_VIDEO_INTEL_SITE = http://xorg.freedesktop.org/releases/individual/driver
>  XDRIVER_XF86_VIDEO_INTEL_LICENSE = MIT
> -- 
> 2.0.1
> 

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] xf86-video-intel: Bump version to 2.99.912

[Bernd Kuhls]

Bernd Kuhls <bernd.kuhls@t-online.de> wrote in 
news:XnsA36EAEF1EB0D1berndkuhlsPkbjNfxxIA at bernd-kuhls.de:

> Therefore I currently stayed away from this release, please see my patch to 
> bump version to its predecessor 2.99.911[1]. I am awaiting the next release 
> of this driver and will test again, so for today: NAK.

Hi,

I just tried 2.99.914 for a short test, the screen stayed black after two 
reboots, so I reverted back to 2.99.911. Currently I am lacking the time to 
debug, but I saw no obvious (dmesg, xorg.log) error messages.

Regards, Bernd

[Buildroot] [PATCH] sna/dri2: Protect compsiteext.h include with build check

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Ben Widawsky,

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:23:37 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 07:40:34AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > 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>
> 
> This patch does not apply cleanly to .912. The wiggled patch does build.
> With my earlier patch reverted.
> 
> If this patch will be in .913, and .913 is coming relatively soon, we
> can ignore this entirely for buildroot and simply do a version bump to
> .913 when its available.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comment. Your patch was against
Buildroot, but you say it doesn't apply against .912, which is a
version of the intel driver. Could you explain a bit more if your
patches http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/371342/ and
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/371343/ are still applicable?

Thanks,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH] sna/dri2: Protect compsiteext.h include with build check

[Ben Widawsky]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:44:58PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Ben Widawsky,
> 
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:23:37 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 07:40:34AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > 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>
> > 
> > This patch does not apply cleanly to .912. The wiggled patch does build.
> > With my earlier patch reverted.
> > 
> > If this patch will be in .913, and .913 is coming relatively soon, we
> > can ignore this entirely for buildroot and simply do a version bump to
> > .913 when its available.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comment. Your patch was against
> Buildroot, but you say it doesn't apply against .912, which is a
> version of the intel driver. Could you explain a bit more if your
> patches http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/371342/ and
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/371343/ are still applicable?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Thomas

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.

---


commit 6cf66fc273e6d6348f605e7dcce915e53198e23b
Author: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Date:   Fri Jul 18 16:24:07 2014 -0700

    xdriver_xf86-video-intel: Take the upstream composite patch
    
    "
    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>
    "
    
    Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>

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
+

[Buildroot] [PATCH] sna/dri2: Protect compsiteext.h include with build check

[Bernd Kuhls]

Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> wrote in
news:20140723223626.GA759 at 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

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] xf86-video-intel: Bump version to 2.99.912

[Bernd Kuhls]

[posted and mailed]

Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> wrote in 
news:20140720191827.GA10208 at bwidawsk.net:

> 4. Wait until Chris releases 2.99.913 (or 3.0), and just bump to that.

Hi,

after bisecting I found the patch responsible for the black screen:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel/commit/?
id=f66e25def3431a900068cc1c23a6b1e8322ef046

Disabling __intel_open_device__pci solved the problem, I have yet to 
investigate the reason and maybe open a bugreport at freedesktop.org. After 
boot the screen stays black when starting Xorg for the first time, the second 
try works, although all kernel modules were loaded before...

So updating buildroot to 2.99.914 is ok for me now.

Regards, Bernd

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] xf86-video-intel: Disable SNA without composite

[Bernd Kuhls]

Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> wrote in 
news:1405661249-6506-1-git-send-email-ben at bwidawsk.net:

> SNA requires the composite extension.

Hi,

I could compile the sna module of 2.99.914 using

# BR2_PACKAGE_XLIB_LIBXCOMPOSITE is not set

snippet from configure:

xf86-video-intel 2.99.914 will be compiled with:
  Xorg Video ABI version: 18.0
  Acceleration backends: *sna

2.99.913 included a patch to address this:

* Fix build without Composite extension.

Regards, Bernd

[Buildroot] [PATCH] sna/dri2: Protect compsiteext.h include with build check

[Thomas Petazzoni]

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
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH] sna/dri2: Protect compsiteext.h include with build check

[Ben Widawsky]

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