On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:46:30AM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
On 29 March 2018 at 08:17, Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 04:11:39PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
On 28 March 2018 at 15:49, Chris Wilson chris@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote:
Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-03-28 02:24:48)
From: Deepak Sharma deepak.sharma@amd.com
Modify vgem_init to take platform dev as parent in drm_dev_init. This will make drm device available at "/sys/devices/platform/vgem" in x86 chromebook.
Cc: Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch Signed-off-by: Deepak Sharma deepak.sharma@amd.com Reviewed-by: Sean Paul seanpaul@chromium.org Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov emil.velikov@collabora.com
drivers/gpu/drm/vgem/vgem_drv.c | 15 +++++++-------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vgem/vgem_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vgem/vgem_drv.c index 2524ff116f00..636ce32fa945 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vgem/vgem_drv.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vgem/vgem_drv.c @@ -472,31 +472,30 @@ static int __init vgem_init(void) if (!vgem_device) return -ENOMEM;
ret = drm_dev_init(&vgem_device->drm, &vgem_driver, NULL);if (ret)goto out_free;A shame to lose the test coverage this gave us. Care to replace that with a selftest?
Hi Chris, can you be more specific:
- What test coverage is lost - some IGT tests/other?
- Can you provide a rough outline of the test you have in mind?
I think Chris meant the NULL case for drm_dev_init (which was broken once). But since this series also disallows that with a subsequent patch I think we're just fine.
Ack. How are we going to merge the first two patches?
Note: 3/4 and 4/4 are _not_ safe - will need to finish some pre-requisite work first.
Oh, why are 3&4 not safe? I thought they are, that's why I smashed an r-b onto them. Wrt merging, stuff them all into drm-misc imo. -Daniel