On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Terje Bergström <tbergstrom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > You're right in that binding to a sub-device is not a nice way. DRM > framework just needs a "struct device" to bind to. exynos seems to solve > this by introducing a virtual device and bind to that. I'm not sure if > this is the best way, but worth considering? Note that I'm not too happy about the fact that drm wants a struct device to register a drm device. This all made a lot of sense back in the days when drm drivers this this fancy shadow attaching to allow drm to use a driver for rendering cooperatively with a fbdev driver. Today there's not much reason for that anymore imo, and I'd welcome patches to allow drivers to simply register a drm device (and remove all the newer registration functions for usb/platform/whatever drivers, moving the device handling into drivers). Note that it's a bit work, since not-really-required abstraction (which was useful back when the drm drivers have been shared with *BSD, but pointless now) like the drm irq support needs to be moved away to a pci-dev legacy thing only - it doesn't really buy a kms driver anything above&beyond calling request_irq() itself. So feel free to burn this down, I'll be happy to carry wood to the pyre in the from of reviews (not much time for more right now ...). Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
