On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 03:14:16PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 3:05 PM, David Herrmann
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Vetter
> > wrote:
> >> There's really no need for the drm core to keep a list of all
> >> devices of a given driver - the linux dev
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 3:05 PM, David Herrmann wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Vetter
> wrote:
>> There's really no need for the drm core to keep a list of all
>> devices of a given driver - the linux device model keeps perfect
>> track of this already for us.
>>
>> The exception
Hi Daniel
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> There's really no need for the drm core to keep a list of all
> devices of a given driver - the linux device model keeps perfect
> track of this already for us.
>
> The exception is old legacy ums drivers using pci shadow attaching.
There's really no need for the drm core to keep a list of all
devices of a given driver - the linux device model keeps perfect
track of this already for us.
The exception is old legacy ums drivers using pci shadow attaching.
So rename the lists to make the use case clearer and rip out everything
e
