On 2018-04-10 11:51 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: > On 10 April 2018 at 09:29, Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote: >> On 2018-04-04 04:29 PM, Emil Velikov wrote: >>> From: Emil Velikov <emil.velikov at collabora.com> >>> >>> Rename the variable to reflect what it is. Plus move it out of the dri2 >>> section - it's used in dri2 and dri3. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <emil.velikov at collabora.com> >> >> [...] >> >>> diff --git a/src/amdgpu_probe.c b/src/amdgpu_probe.c >>> index 4959bd6..e9afe42 100644 >>> --- a/src/amdgpu_probe.c >>> +++ b/src/amdgpu_probe.c >>> @@ -178,6 +178,10 @@ static Bool amdgpu_device_setup(ScrnInfoPtr pScrn, >>> if (pAMDGPUEnt->fd < 0) >>> return FALSE; >>> >>> + pAMDGPUEnt->master_node = drmGetDeviceNameFromFd2(pAMDGPUEnt->fd); >>> + if (pAMDGPUEnt->master_node) >>> + goto error_amdgpu; >> >> This should be >> >> if (!pAMDGPUEnt->master_node) >> >> shouldn't it? >> >> >> ... Which raises the question: How did you test these patches? :) >> > I mentioned it in the cover letter, but seems to have dropped it - > they are untested. > There's a r600 card close-by I could test with, but no amdgpu one :-\ Okay. I can probably test this series, but in general it's preferable for patches to be tested before sending them out for review. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
