> What is the point in claiming that you have X+Y devices, if the API does not > provide any information about Y of them ? It seems very misleading imho.
I'm not sure if I understand your question correctly. Do you mean if the Y devices will be enumerated with current implementation? If so, I think the answer should be 'NO', since other bus types (i.e, platform, USB) are not supported yet. Regards, Jammy -----Original Message----- From: Emil Velikov [mailto:emil.l.veli...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 4:35 PM To: Zhou, Jammy Cc: ML dri-devel Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] drm: add interface to get drm devices on the system v2 On 14 August 2015 at 06:53, Zhou, Jammy <Jammy.Zhou at amd.com> wrote: > Hi Emil, > >> If there are any other devices they will still be counted when >> drmGetDevices(NULL, 0)... Is that intentional ? > Yes, I think so, so that this interface can support different kinds of > devices in the future. For example, we have some ARM platforms supporting > PCIE, in which case we can connect one PCIE graphics card, then there will be > one GPU with the platform bus (integrated GPU in the ARM SOC), and one > discrete GPU on the PCIE bus. > What is the point in claiming that you have X+Y devices, if the API does not provide any information about Y of them ? It seems very misleading imho. >> Something funny is happening here - on my intel system vendor_id is reported >> as 0xff86, instead of 0x8086. Subvendor/device are also messed up - ffaa and >> ffda instead of 17aa + 21da. > That's really interesting. Did you try to update the system BIOS? > Seems like a C Programming 101 issue to me rather than a BIOS one.The (signed) char 0x86 gets extended/promoted to 0xff86 and then all hell breaks loose. Adding typecast(s) should fix it. That does not excuse me from writing is so weird from the start :) Thanks for tweaking/ironing the bugs out. Emil
