Re: legacy DRM UMS vs. "options DRM_LEGACY"

[Robert Swindells <rjs%fdy2.co.uk@localhost>]

"John D. Baker" <jdbaker%consolidated.net@localhost> wrote:
>On Sat, 3 Sep 2022, Robert Swindells wrote:
>> You look to be mixing drm and drm2 in your build, you don't want to do
>> that, you want one or the other.
>
>_I_ am not.  It's the result of whatever was changed with the introduction
>of "options DRM_LEGACY".  I've built kernels with these configs since
>NetBSD 5 with only minor tweaks to elide drivers for non-existent
>hardware.  The last time I was able to successfully build these kernels
>was 29 July 2022.
>
>I seem to recall a mention that at present only "viadrmums" works with
>the DRM_LEGACY option and indeed, I have a machine which uses that and
>it builds fine.  I was hoping there was a way around that for the other
>legacy DRM drivers, but unless/until they are adapted, I'll have to do
>without.

The DRM_LEGACY option is just for drm2, if you want to build a kernel
with drm drivers then don't enable DRM_LEGACY.

Post a kernel config that you are trying to build, without that people
won't be able to work out what is going wrong.