On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 03:24:49PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> On 1 December 2016 at 04:18, Jonathan Gray <jsg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > --- a/xf86drm.c
> > +++ b/xf86drm.c
> > @@ -3248,6 +3248,67 @@ drm_device_validate_flags(uint32_t flags)
> > */
> > int drmGetDevice2(int fd, uint32_t flags, drmDevicePtr *device)
> > {
> > +#ifdef __OpenBSD__
> > + /*
> > + * DRI device nodes on OpenBSD are not in their own directory, they reside
> > + * in /dev along with a large number of statically generated /dev nodes.
> > + * Avoid stat'ing all of /dev needlessly by implementing this custom path.
> > + */
> I was in the area, fixing the odd bug and doing some cleanups and a
> question came to mind:
>
> Is there some obstacle of placing the drm nodes under /dev/dri/? It
> would involve a check/update through the OpenBSD tree, yet no obvious
> downsides comes to mind.
> I think it would make things more distinct and obvious. IIRC the
> OpenBSD xserver does some checking which /dev node opened, the
> suggestion should help there.
>
> What do you think?
> Emil
There are no other devices under a sub-directory besides /dev/fd/.
I don't think anyone is going to be onboard with changing things for
drm nodes. Though drm device nodes names will have to be revisted
when/if render nodes etc get supported. drmR drmC etc have not
been proposed yet.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
