On 20/05/14 18:04, Gary Wong wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:07:15AM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> As you can notice I'm not a huge fan of adding yet another way of
>> retrieving the device/driver name although I would not object if
>> you're willing to split this patch a bit, have the option o
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:07:15AM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
> As you can notice I'm not a huge fan of adding yet another way of
> retrieving the device/driver name although I would not object if
> you're willing to split this patch a bit, have the option off by
> default and fix bugs if/when they
On 15/05/14 05:39, Gary Wong wrote:
> loader_get_pci_id_for_fd() and loader_get_device_name_for_fd() now attempt
> all available strategies to identify the hardware, instead of conditionally
> compiling in a single test. The existing libudev and DRM approaches have
> been retained, and another sim
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:39:05PM -0600, Gary Wong wrote:
> loader_get_pci_id_for_fd() and loader_get_device_name_for_fd() now attempt
> all available strategies to identify the hardware, instead of conditionally
> compiling in a single test. The existing libudev and DRM approaches have
> been re
loader_get_pci_id_for_fd() and loader_get_device_name_for_fd() now attempt
all available strategies to identify the hardware, instead of conditionally
compiling in a single test. The existing libudev and DRM approaches have
been retained, and another simple alternative of looking up the answer in
