On 28/02/18 15:23, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Tomi, > > On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 13:37:48 EET Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> On 27/02/18 16:35, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >>> the whole omap_irq_fifo_underflow() and omap_irq_ocp_error_handler() IRQ >>> handling to the DSS side, as they're not DRM/KMS-related ? >> >> I think we should react to both errors somehow (I'm not sure how, >> disable output probably), and that has to be done on the KMS level. We >> don't do that now, but moving this to DSS side would make error handling >> more difficult to do in the future. > > Ideally I'd demultiplex interrupts on the DSS side and report events to the > KMS side (page flip completion, underflows, ...). That's more or less what Jyri's "drm/omap: Make omapdss API more generic" does, isn't it? Or what is the difference with interrupt and event in your mind? Function calls vs status bits? Tomi -- Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki. Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
