[Buildroot] [PATCH 4/4] package/efl: add Evas GL DRM Engine support
Romain Naour
romain.naour at gmail.com
Sat Sep 17 20:30:36 UTC 2016
Hi Thomas,
Le 17/09/2016 à 19:14, Thomas Petazzoni a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 23:08:43 +0200, Romain Naour wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/package/efl/Config.in b/package/efl/Config.in
>> index 6171b29..c6c26d8 100644
>> --- a/package/efl/Config.in
>> +++ b/package/efl/Config.in
>> @@ -208,6 +208,16 @@ comment "Evas DRM Engine needs mesa3d w/ EGL support, threads"
>> depends on !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_THREADS || !BR2_PACKAGE_MESA3D_OPENGL_EGL
>> depends on BR2_PACKAGE_EFL_ELPUT
>>
>> +config BR2_PACKAGE_EFL_GL_DRM
>
> Is it useful to have it as a separate option from BR2_PACKAGE_EFL_DRM ?
You mean enable evas gl-drm engine only when all dependencies are available
without using a separate option? Yes why not.
> In which case can BR2_PACKAGE_EFL_DRM without BR2_PACKAGE_EFL_GL_DRM be
> useful ?
I don't know. The evas gl-drm (opengl based DRM) engine can be enabled
separately from ecore drm for some reason, so I tried to reproduce this
possibility on the packaging.
Anyway my goal is the test EFL/E with Wayland and --enable-gl-drm and
--enable-drm are required together for this [1].
[1] https://phab.enlightenment.org/w/wayland/
>
>> + bool "Evas GL DRM Engine"
>> + depends on BR2_PACKAGE_EFL_DRM
>> + depends on BR2_PACKAGE_EFL_OPENGLES # OpenGL ES with EGL support only
>
> So perhaps "BR2_PAKCAGE_EFL_GLES_DRM" is a better name? "GL" usually
> refers to "full OpenGL", as opposed to OpenGL ES.
Ok, I'll fix this.
>
>> + help
>> + This option enable building support for the Evas DRM Engine.
>
> This help text is wrong, as it is just a copy/paste of the one of
> BR2_PACKAGE_EFL_DRM.
Indeed, sorry...
The help text should precise that this support the Evas DRM based on OpenGL ES.
[2]
https://git.enlightenment.org/core/efl.git/commit/?id=f5b81093978fbbe411f9fb509617b6f4081f8da8
>
>> +
>> +comment "Evas GL DRM Engine needs Evas DRM Engine, OpenGL ES w/ EGL"
>> + depends on BR2_PACKAGE_EFL_DRM && !BR2_PACKAGE_EFL_OPENGLES
>
> I find all those DRM/OpenGLES options in the efl package very
> confusing. Are all those options needed? What are the use cases for the
> different possible cases?
Well, the packaging is confusing because theses options are already confusing at
configure.ac level. Do we want a fine grained options choices for theses or a
"global" OpenGLES + DRM options?
Best regards,
Romain
>
> Thanks,
>
> Thomas
>
More information about the buildroot
mailing list