On 20 December 2015 at 04:37, Stefan Agner <stefan@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2015-12-19 08:49, Emil Velikov wrote: >> Hi Stefan, >> >> On 18 December 2015 at 19:37, Stefan Agner <stefan@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> From: Stefan Agner <stefan.agner@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@xxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> tests/kmstest/main.c | 1 + >>> tests/modetest/modetest.c | 2 +- >>> tests/proptest/proptest.c | 2 +- >>> tests/vbltest/vbltest.c | 2 +- >>> 4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >> I've pushed a series (where this patch will conflict) around the same >> time you sent this. Please can take a look at tests/util/kms.c... >> although kmstest, (even modeprint and others) could be updated to use >> the new helper. > > I see, will rebase my patch. > >> >> Although I'd really love if one updates the drm*Device API to handle >> platform devices. I've been looking for volunteers, although most >> platform people tend to say low :-P > > Do I get that right, you would like to extend drm*Device API to also > enumerate platform devices? That's right. > Hm, I guess one would have to have a > reasonable understanding of what variations are out there to make the > API future proof. I think right now I will join the other platform > device developers and stay low :-) > I wouldn't worry that much about future proofing it. The first implementation (of everything) is never perfect. Something like the platform id (alike the one reported by the kernel module) perhaps even the id "fused" with the location (like the one produced due to the DT bindings) or anything that you believe is reasonable. -Emil _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
