On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 12:25:57PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: > On 9 April 2018 at 11:24, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 9 April 2018 at 09:26, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>> - point drm_device::dev to the parent of the virtio_device > >>> The biggest hack imaginable, if even possible. > >> > >> What would/could break if we do this? Why is this a hack? > > > > It _feels_ very hacky to reach/store the parent of the _parent_ device given. > > Dummy grep for \<dev\> showed hundreds of entries, but many of those > > are unrelated. > > Will give it a closer look - might not be as bad, as I originally thought. > > > Here are the side-effects: > > Semantic changes > * using the wrong device for i2c - via drm_dp_add_port > * passing the wrong device to framebuffer_alloc - via drm_fb_helper_alloc_fbi > * using the wrong parent device to drm_gem_prime_import_dev > > Visual > * printing the wrong device on DRM_DEV_ERROR, dev_info, drm_printer, etc > > Needs a pdev_to_virtio() since we have the struct > virtio_device::struct device::struct device parent - via > virtio_gpu_driver_load > > One, might get away with the above, by introducing drm_device::device > bus_device, or alike. > That one is used solely for the unique magic :-\ > > It sounds tad dirty, so I'm leaning with just commenting it. Open to > alternative suggestions though. Yeah, big huge comment is probably best. And the 10 year plan to nuke this all :-) -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
