Re: [PATCH libdrm] libdrm: Allow dynamic drm majors on linux

[Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom-pghWNbHTmq7QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

On 08/31/2018 04:38 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> [ Adding the amd-gfx list ]
>
> On 2018-08-31 3:05 p.m., Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> On 08/31/2018 02:30 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>> On 31 August 2018 at 12:54, Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> To determine whether a device node is a drm device node or not, the code
>>>> currently compares the node's major number to the static drm major
>>>> device
>>>> number.
>>>>
>>>> This breaks the standalone vmwgfx driver on XWayland dri clients,
>>>>
>>> Any particular reason why the code doesn't use a fixed node there?
>>> It will make the diff vs the in-kernel driver a bit smaller.
>> Because then it won't be able to interoperate with other in-tree
>> drivers, like virtual drm drivers or passthrough usb drm drivers.
>> There is no clean way to share the minor number allocation with in-tree
>> drm, so standalone vmwgfx is using dynamic major allocation.
> I wonder why I haven't heard of any of these issues with the standalone
> version of amdgpu shipped in packaged AMD releases. Does that also use a
> different major number? If yes, maybe it's just that nobody has tried
> Xwayland clients with that driver. If no, how does it avoid the other
> issues described above?
>
>
Is standalone AMD supposed to be able to coexist with in-tree drm drivers?

/Thomas


_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx