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