Re: [PATCH] xf86drm: remove to open the DRM device unnecessarily

[Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@samsung.com>]

On 05/29/2015 12:51 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> Seems like I'm either too subtle and/or too stingy earlier.
> 
> If drmAvailable() returns false, we have two options:
>  - opt for the old-schoold (dri1) and ask drm_server_info to load the
> module for us, or
>  - bail out, as neither drmOpenByBusid() or drmOpenByName() will be
> able to open the device considering that a DRM module is not loaded.
> 
> So what I was hinting earlier was to make the above more obvious,
> rather than reordering the arguments in the if clause. How does that
> sound ?
> 

I'm unhappy about to open DRM device always via drmAvailable(). IMHO
it's enough to check DRM device can be open by drmOpenByBusid() or
drmOpenByName() if don't load module and actually i expect DRM device
is open only once when call drmOpenWithType().

> Thanks
> Emil
> 
> On 28 May 2015 at 15:15, Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@google.com> wrote:
>> It's not necessary if we are about to skip the rest of the if clause anyway
>> because name is NULL.
>>
>> On May 28, 2015 9:14 PM, "Emil Velikov" <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28 May 2015 at 00:57, Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@samsung.com> wrote:
>>>> This is to remove to open the DRM device unnecessarily as call
>>>> drmAvailable() when name is NULL or drm_server_info is NULL in
>>>> drmOpenWithType function.
>>>>
>>> Why do you believe that calling drmAvailable() is not necessary ? If
>>> that's the case should one just nuke the call all together ?
>>>
>>> -Emil
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dri-devel mailing list
>>> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
> 

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel