> > Hmmm, what's about the opposite approach? > To me, it sounds simpler and more logical when the kernel always creates > one device node per output (or maybe dynamically per connected output), > without any need for configuration or device assignment. It just doesn't fit in with how the drm device nodes work, like it might seem simpler in the kernel but I think it would just complicate userspace. > If a single X server wants to control several outputs, > libdrm should open the corresponding number of devices in parallel. > We already have both static X configuration and xrandr for configuring > that, and if the devices allow only a single open, > this would also arbitrate outputs between servers > (a server can't open an output which is already taken). I haven't decided it couldn't work but I'd need a working implementation to even consider merging it, where I've already done a demo of how I think it should work, which means I don't have to revalidate things if someone were to complete it. Dave. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
