On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 2:04 PM Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On 17/01/19 14:33, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 01:19:18PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > >> The DRM device minor numbers are allocated according to the registration > >> order. This causes confusion in cases where the registration order can > >> change, or when, say, a modesetting capable device is preferred to be > >> card0, and a rendering device is preferred to be card1. > >> > >> This patch adds similar functionality that is used in some other > >> subsystems, where device minor numbers can be defined in DT bindings' > >> aliases node. > > > > What other subsystem? I thought that minor numbers shouldn't be made uapi, > > and that udev or similar is supposed to give you stable names ... Is that > > not the case on SoC? > > I think at least i2c, spi and uart use DT aliases. Commits/code implementing would be best. > I also have my doubts about this, but thought to post this to get some > comments, as it does make life quite a bit easier =). Yeah I think "soc without udev" seems reasonable assumption, I just think this is something the overall soc community should agree on as a good thing to do. I guess since the of stuff you're using is generic that's all happened already, so should amount to gathering a pile of acks and then merging it. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
