Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 26 Jul 2023 18:15:56 +0000
To:     =?utf-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Winiarski?= <michal.winiarski@intel.com>
From:   Simon Ser <contact@emersion.fr>
Cc:     dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@kernel.org>,
        =?utf-8?Q?Christian_K=C3=B6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        James Zhu <James.Zhu@amd.com>,
        Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.com>,
        Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/4] drm: Expand max DRM device number to full MINORBITS
Message-ID: <83s0YPWEdYE6C2a8pa6UAa3EaWZ2zG-q7IL9M-y6W1ucF9V54VnZtigKj3BGKUA2FZpIrs0VVxmpHO2RAhs_FdOnss9vNLQNSHySY8uH7YA=@emersion.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20230724211428.3831636-4-michal.winiarski@intel.com>
References: <20230724211428.3831636-1-michal.winiarski@intel.com> <20230724211428.3831636-4-michal.winiarski@intel.com>
Feedback-ID: 1358184:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Monday, July 24th, 2023 at 23:14, Micha=C5=82 Winiarski <michal.winiarsk=
i@intel.com> wrote:

> Having a limit of 64 DRM devices is not good enough for modern world
> where we have multi-GPU servers, SR-IOV virtual functions and virtual
> devices used for testing.
> Let's utilize full minor range for DRM devices.
> To avoid regressing the existing userspace, we're still maintaining the
> numbering scheme where 0-63 is used for primary, 64-127 is reserved
> (formerly for control) and 128-191 is used for render.
> For minors >=3D 192, we're allocating minors dynamically on a first-come,
> first-served basis.

In general the approach looks good to me. Old libdrm will see the new
nodes as nodes with an unknown type when it tries to infer the nod type
from the minor, which is as good as it gets.

We do need patches to stop trying to infer the node type from the minor
in libdrm, though. Emil has suggested using sysfs, which we already do
in a few places in libdrm.