On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 01:53:44AM +0000, Liu, Chuansheng wrote: >> This patch is for introducing the irq thread support in drm_irq. >> >> Why we need irq thread in drm_irq code? >> In our GPU system, the gpu interrupt handler need some time even > 1ms to finish, >> in that case, the whole system will stay in irq disable status. One case is: >> when audio is playing, it sometimes effects the audio quality. >> >> So we have to introduce the irq thread in drm_irq, it can help us move some heavy work into irq thread >> and other irq interrupts can be handled in time. Also the IRQF_ONESHOT is helpful for irq thread. >> >> Include one patch: >> [PATCH 01/1] drm_irq-Introducing-the-irq_thread-support > > For a kms drm driver (and tbh, doing a non-kms driver today is not a great > idea), there's no reason to use the drm_irq_install/_unistall helpers. > > So if you driver has special needs wrt irq handling that don't neatly fit > what the drm_irq stuff provides, simply don't use it - all the generic > code that's there is just to keep non-kms userspace going. perhaps an easy thing would just be to allow the driver to provide it's own request_irq? That might be an easier way for devices that need to register multiple irq's, etc? Or is it better to just bypass and dev->irq_enabled=1? That seemed a bit like a hack to me, but the current irq code is more framework-ish, and less helper-ish.. BR, -R > Yours, Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Mail: daniel@xxxxxxxx > Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48 > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
