On 10 April 2018 at 09:27, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote:
> On 2018-04-04 04:29 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> From: Emil Velikov <emil.veli...@collabora.com>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <emil.veli...@collabora.com>
>> ---
>> src/amdgpu_probe.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/amdgpu_probe.c b/src/amdgpu_probe.c
>> index e65c83b..78cc005 100644
>> --- a/src/amdgpu_probe.c
>> +++ b/src/amdgpu_probe.c
>> @@ -33,6 +33,8 @@
>> #include <errno.h>
>> #include <string.h>
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>> +#include <sys/stat.h>
>> +#include <fcntl.h>
>>
>> /*
>> * Authors:
>> @@ -117,18 +119,28 @@ static int amdgpu_kernel_open_fd(ScrnInfoPtr pScrn,
>> struct xf86_platform_device *platform_dev)
>> {
>> struct pci_device *dev;
>> + const char *path;
>> char *busid;
>> int fd;
>>
>> -#ifdef ODEV_ATTRIB_FD
>> if (platform_dev) {
>> +#ifdef ODEV_ATTRIB_FD
>> fd = xf86_get_platform_device_int_attrib(platform_dev,
>> ODEV_ATTRIB_FD, -1);
>> if (fd != -1)
>> return fd;
>> - }
>> #endif
>>
>> +#ifdef ODEV_ATTRIB_PATH
>
> This guard is superfluous: ODEV_ATTRIB_PATH was added in xserver 1.13,
> and we require >= 1.13.
>
Was respinning the patches and noticed that the guard is needed. Namely:
The ODEV_ATTRIB_FD macro is set in xf86platformBus.h which is included
only as XSERVER_PLATFORM_BUS is set.
We can use either macro as a guard, yet the former seems more natural/obvious.
What do you think?
-Emil
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
