On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 03:19:10PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > Framebuffer devices that are registered by DRM drivers for fbdev emulation > have a "drmfb" suffix in their name. But makes them to be quite confusing > if a driver already has "drm" in its name: > > $ cat /proc/fb > 0 rockchipdrmdrmfb > > $ cat /proc/fb > 0 simpledrmdrmfb > > Instead, let's just add a "-fb" suffix to denote that are DRM drivers FB: > > $ cat /proc/fb > 0 rockchipdrm-fb > > $ cat /proc/fb > 0 simpledrm-fb > > Suggested-by: Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@xxxxxxxxxx> So what with all the drivers which do _not_ have drm in their name? Also I'm never sure how much these are uapi or not ... -Daniel > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fb_helper.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fb_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fb_helper.c > index f6baa204612..bbaff92c509 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fb_helper.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fb_helper.c > @@ -1737,7 +1737,7 @@ void drm_fb_helper_fill_info(struct fb_info *info, > sizes->fb_width, sizes->fb_height); > > info->par = fb_helper; > - snprintf(info->fix.id, sizeof(info->fix.id), "%sdrmfb", > + snprintf(info->fix.id, sizeof(info->fix.id), "%s-fb", > fb_helper->dev->driver->name); > > } > -- > 2.31.1 > -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
