On 08/09/2017 07:40 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 07:38:29PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 07:17:54PM +0200, Sinclair Yeh wrote:
From: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx>
See LWN article at
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lwn.net_Articles_302043_&d=DwIBAg&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=wnSlgOCqfpNS4d02vP68_E9q2BNMCwfD2OZ_6dCFVQQ&m=NYyVOtVu5iQrNCGt-QcVtR_IU0lhhztOmFP3qnN88tc&s=ruWozYT16Yk3p7sIscOFDNKCC1_WHX_7ChY7q5Ko4vw&e=
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Deepak Singh Rawat <drawat@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Sinclair Yeh <syeh@xxxxxxxxxx>
We definitely can't do this in general due to latency reasons. Please
read the kerneldoc of drm_irq_install and just roll your own. This also
seems to like break every driver's compilation.
Oops misread, I thought you rename stuff instead of adding. I still don't
see the point - drm_irq_install happened because of the *bsd abstraction
layer, not because it's actually all that useful.
-Daniel
So the whole point of this is to replace the vmwgfx tasklets with
treaded irqs to be nicer on the system. Seems like no other drivers use
tasklets at this point.
The vmwgfx driver is using drm_irq_install(), Of course we could
duplicate that code into the driver, but I don't see the point in doing
that nor how this would violate what's written in the drm_irq_install
kerneldoc? It just extends its functionality somewhat.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
