On 05/03/2017 12:39 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 09:22:13PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: >> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 10:02:07AM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote: >>> /** >>> + * drm_gem_prime_import_platform - alternate implementation of the import callback >>> + * @dev: drm_device to import into >>> + * @dma_buf: dma-buf object to import >>> + * >>> + * This is identical to drm_gem_prime_import except the device used for dma_buf >>> + * attachment is an internal platform device instead of the standard device >>> + * structure. The use of this function should be limited to drivers that do not >>> + * set up an underlying device structure. >>> + */ >>> +struct drm_gem_object *drm_gem_prime_import_platform(struct drm_device *dev, >> >> Simpler soluation will be for the caller to provide the platformdev? >> >> That works nicely for the vgem case, I think. > > Yeah looking at this again, do we really need this patch? Couldn't we > instead change patch 1 to first allocate the fake platform device, then > pass that to drm_dev_alloc (instead of NULL like we do now)? > That was what I proposed in the first version and it was rejected. It's useful to have at least one driver with a NULL device for testing edge cases. > That way no resurrection of drm_device.platform_dev is needed (and I'd > really like this zombie to stay dead on 2nd thought). > I had a hunch this would be unpopular but I figured it was worth a shot. I think an even cleaner solution is to allow passing of any struct device. I'll see about reworking this. > Sry about this yet-another-round review :-/ > -Daniel > Thanks for your patience. Laura _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
