[PATCH libdrm] xf86drm: correct the OpenBSD DRM_MAJOR define

[Emil Velikov]

On 20 July 2015 at 17:15, Jonathan Gray <jsg at jsg.id.au> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 05:06:09PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 18 July 2015 at 22:20, Jonathan Gray <jsg at jsg.id.au> wrote:
>> > As far as I can tell no OpenBSD platform ever used 81
>> > for a drm major.  While the value was added to libdrm in 2003
>> > or earlier drm didn't appear in OpenBSD till 2007.
>> >
>> > Of the OpenBSD platforms that support drm amd64/macppc/sparc64
>> > use a major of 87, i386 uses 88.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Gray <jsg at jsg.id.au>
>> > ---
>> >  xf86drm.c | 8 +++++---
>> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/xf86drm.c b/xf86drm.c
>> > index 7d7f9c7..a2c549c 100644
>> > --- a/xf86drm.c
>> > +++ b/xf86drm.c
>> > @@ -72,9 +72,11 @@
>> >  #define DRM_MAJOR 34
>> >  #endif
>> >
>> > -# ifdef __OpenBSD__
>> > -#  define DRM_MAJOR 81
>> > -# endif
>> > +#if defined(__OpenBSD__) && defined(__i386__)
>> > +#define DRM_MAJOR 88
>> > +#elif defined(__OpenBSD__)
>> > +#define DRM_MAJOR 87
>> > +#endif
>> >
>> Bikeshed: any objections if we cascade the ifdef statements ?
>
> Do you mean indent the defines or have the entire block
> undef ifdef __OpenBSD__?  Either way would be fine with me.

Cascade seems like the wrong term here - here is what I meant:

 #ifdef __OpenBSD__
+#ifdef __i386__
+#define DRM_MAJOR 88
+#else
+#define DRM_MAJOR 87
 #endif
+#endif /* __OpenBSD__ */

-Emil