Hi
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Damien Lespiau
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 09:26:51PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> > So the parent structure is expected to have "struct drm_device" at
>> > offset 0? I'd rather like to see a "drm_dev_init()" alongside
>> > drm_dev_alloc() similar to dev
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 09:26:51PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > So the parent structure is expected to have "struct drm_device" at
> > offset 0? I'd rather like to see a "drm_dev_init()" alongside
> > drm_dev_alloc() similar to device_initialize().
>
> Yeah, I think for subclassing we want driv
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 08:01:19PM +0100, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Damien Lespiau
> wrote:
> > Currently, drivers are expected to allocate private data and attach it
> > to dev_private in struct drm_device.
> >
> > This has the unfortunate property to requir
Hi
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Damien Lespiau
wrote:
> Currently, drivers are expected to allocate private data and attach it
> to dev_private in struct drm_device.
>
> This has the unfortunate property to require driver code to juggle
> between the pointer to struct drm_device and dev->dev_
Currently, drivers are expected to allocate private data and attach it
to dev_private in struct drm_device.
This has the unfortunate property to require driver code to juggle
between the pointer to struct drm_device and dev->dev_private instead of
using the same pointer if they could embed the dev
