On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 04:11:39PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: > On 28 March 2018 at 15:49, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-03-28 02:24:48) > >> From: Deepak Sharma <deepak.sharma@xxxxxxx> > >> > >> Modify vgem_init to take platform dev as parent in drm_dev_init. > >> This will make drm device available at "/sys/devices/platform/vgem" > >> in x86 chromebook. > >> > >> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Deepak Sharma <deepak.sharma@xxxxxxx> > >> Reviewed-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <emil.velikov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/vgem/vgem_drv.c | 15 +++++++-------- > >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vgem/vgem_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vgem/vgem_drv.c > >> index 2524ff116f00..636ce32fa945 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vgem/vgem_drv.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vgem/vgem_drv.c > >> @@ -472,31 +472,30 @@ static int __init vgem_init(void) > >> if (!vgem_device) > >> return -ENOMEM; > >> > >> - ret = drm_dev_init(&vgem_device->drm, &vgem_driver, NULL); > >> - if (ret) > >> - goto out_free; > > > > A shame to lose the test coverage this gave us. Care to replace that > > with a selftest? > > Hi Chris, can you be more specific: > - What test coverage is lost - some IGT tests/other? > - Can you provide a rough outline of the test you have in mind? I think Chris meant the NULL case for drm_dev_init (which was broken once). But since this series also disallows that with a subsequent patch I think we're just fine. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
