[OE-core] [PATCH 2/2] mesa-dri: move extra DRIMODULES to EXTRA_DRIMODULES

[Martin Jansa]

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 03:40:10PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-10-15 at 16:34 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 03:30:13PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2011-10-15 at 12:24 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > > > * this way we can use
> > > >   EXTRA_DRIMODULES_armv4t += ",glamo" in meta-openmoko layer and
> > > >   EXTRA_DRIMODULES_armv4t += ",foo" in meta-bar layer without knowledge
> > > >   of other modules in other layers in stack
> > > 
> > > Is this really better than using "DRIMODULES_append_armv4t = ..."?  
> > 
> > the point is that you don't need to know who is setting swrast there for
> > armv4t...
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you're saying there.  Can you be more
> concrete?
> 
> > > 
> > > It's not really true that you can do it without any knowledge of what
> > > other layers are doing since if you end up with two competing
> > > EXTRA_DRIMODULES_foo overrides then one of them will get lost.
> > > 
> > 
> > so EXTRA_DRIMODULES_append_armv4t should be fine, right?
> 
> Well, yes, but in that case it doesn't seem as though the EXTRA_ bit
> (and this patch) buys anything.

OK, forget this patch.. I've forgot this behavior of _append_armv4t
syntax.. and I've changed meta-openmoko to use this too.

can we change x86 and x86-64 examples in mesa-dri.inc to
DRIDRIVERS_append_x86 = ",i915,i965"
DRIDRIVERS_append_x86-64 = ",i915,i965"
so it will work as example for BSP layer maintainers that thay don't
need to care about setting
DRIDRIVERS = "swrast"
for their arch?

Regards,

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20111017/f3ea60ec/attachment-0002.sig>