Am 31.08.2018 um 17:27 schrieb Emil Velikov:
On 31 August 2018 at 15:38, Michel Dänzer <michel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[ Adding the amd-gfx list ]
On 2018-08-31 3:05 p.m., Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 08/31/2018 02:30 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
On 31 August 2018 at 12:54, Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
To determine whether a device node is a drm device node or not, the code
currently compares the node's major number to the static drm major
device
number.
This breaks the standalone vmwgfx driver on XWayland dri clients,
Any particular reason why the code doesn't use a fixed node there?
It will make the diff vs the in-kernel driver a bit smaller.
Because then it won't be able to interoperate with other in-tree
drivers, like virtual drm drivers or passthrough usb drm drivers.
There is no clean way to share the minor number allocation with in-tree
drm, so standalone vmwgfx is using dynamic major allocation.
I wonder why I haven't heard of any of these issues with the standalone
version of amdgpu shipped in packaged AMD releases. Does that also use a
different major number? If yes, maybe it's just that nobody has tried
Xwayland clients with that driver. If no, how does it avoid the other
issues described above?
AFAICT, the difference is that the standalone vmwgfx uses an internal
copy of drm core.
It doesn't reuse the in-kernel drm, hence it cannot know which minor it can use.
The amdgpu pro package has it's own drm core copy as well and there it
still works.
Not sure how our back-porting guys handle that.
Christian.
-Emil
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
