On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 09:26:51PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > So the parent structure is expected to have "struct drm_device" at > > offset 0? I'd rather like to see a "drm_dev_init()" alongside > > drm_dev_alloc() similar to device_initialize(). > > Yeah, I think for subclassing we want drivers in charge to kmalloc the > entire thing and embedded struct drm_device wherever they please to do so. > Adding struct_size stuff all over the place still forces us through the > midlayer ... > > I'm trying to get there with my giant drm cleanup series (which contains > some of the same dev_priv_size cleanups like yours). Dunno whether it's > worth all to much to start embedding before we have that all ready since > imo the big value in demidlayering is that it allows us to fix up the > init/teardown sequence. That it also allows struct drm_device embedding is > kinda neat, but not my main goal. > -Daniel I'm not sure why would people want struct drm_device at a non-0 offset, but in any case, if Daniel is already looking into this, let's scrap that series. At least we know that it doesn't have to be a long term plan and we can do it as soon as we want. -- Damien _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
