From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] drm platform multi-device support
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 22:08:29 -0500
Message-ID: <BANLkTimh4MVvDFfLP-go4A04kV17_ZtjCw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1301417093-14843-1-git-send-email-rob@ti.com>
	<BANLkTi=cjGWaQep=ypO0BqrDGU9Jzd_5jA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mail-bw0-f49.google.com (mail-bw0-f49.google.com
	[209.85.214.49])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 781BA9E768
	for <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Mon,  4 Apr 2011 20:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz1 with SMTP id 1so5306100bwz.36
	for <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Mon, 04 Apr 2011 20:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=cjGWaQep=ypO0BqrDGU9Jzd_5jA@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/dri-devel>,
	<mailto:dri-devel-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dri-devel-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel>,
	<mailto:dri-devel-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Rob Clark <rob@ti.com> wrote:
>> From: Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>
>>
>> Include the minor device id in the bus-id to give userspace a way to open
>> the correct "cardN" when there are multiple device instances.
>> ---
>> It may seem a bit strange to have multiple platform device instances, but
>> we have a use-case for this. =A0And this relatively simple patch does the
>> trick.
>
> I'm finding it hard to like this since I feel it might limit certain
> thing in the future, by baking
> this into the ABI.
>
> We have plans for multiple device nodes per device, but they don't
> involve abusing the bus id like this.
>
> Surely you'd just have another platform device with another unique
> name for this, I'd be more willing
> to accept some sort of unique id stored in the platformdev or drm that
> isn't the device node.

What about:

		len =3D snprintf(master->unique, master->unique_len,
			"platform:%s:%02d", dev->platformdev->name, dev->platformdev->id);

(ie. using the id field from struct platform_device)..

Perhaps this is more analogous to using pci bus # / slot / func?

BR,
-R