On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Rob Clark <robdclark at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Dave Airlie <airlied at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Rob Clark <rob at ti.com> wrote: >>> From: Rob Clark <robdclark at 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. ?And 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 = 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?
Yup that seems a lot saner and more acceptable. Dave.
