On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Sean, > > On Friday 01 of November 2013 15:54:31 Sean Paul wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> > Hi Sean, >> > >> > On Tuesday 29 of October 2013 12:12:51 Sean Paul wrote: > [snip] >> >> @@ -995,6 +1000,9 @@ static irqreturn_t mixer_irq_handler(int irq, >> >> void >> >> *arg) /* read interrupt status for handling and clearing flags for >> >> VSYNC */ val = mixer_reg_read(res, MXR_INT_STATUS); >> >> >> >> + if (!ctx->drm_dev) >> >> + goto out; >> > >> > The patch looks fine, but I'd like you to explain me in what >> > conditions >> > can this condition evaluate to true. >> >> This can happen if there's a mixer interrupt before the intialize() >> hook is called. > > What about making the driver enable the interrupt (or even all the > hardware) after this hook is called then? > Sure, I can do that. This is one of the reasons that a unified driver model would be useful. Sean > Best regards, > Tomasz > _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
