On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 02:36:24PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:01:58PM +0100, David Herrmann wrote: > > Whenever we access minor->device, we are in a minor->kdev->...->fops > > callback so the minor->kdev pointer *must* be valid. Thus, simply use > > minor->kdev->devt instead of minor->device and remove the redundant field. > > > > Signed-off-by: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@xxxxxxxxx> > > I think this is simply compat cruft from the days when the drm core was > still shared with the *bsds. With the one patch I've commented on all > patches up to this one are > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > > As discussed on irc I think we don't want to have stable minor ids really, > userspace simply needs to inquire udev to get at the right > render/control/legacy node it wants. Does that mean we should go all the way and don't keep the +64 (for control) and +128 (for render nodes) offsets either? Should it be possible to have a /dev/dri directory that looks somewhat like this: /dev/dri/card0 (GPU#0, legacy) /dev/dri/card1 (GPU#1, legacy) /dev/dri/render0 (GPU#1, render) ? Thierry
Attachment:
pgpF5xq9rq7AU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
