2014-07-14 14:26 GMT-03:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:23:11PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
>> 2014-06-20 13:29 GMT-03:00 Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> > Before we've installed the handler, we can set this and avoid confusing
>> > init code that then thinks IRQs are enabled and spews complaints
>> > everywhere.
>>
>> But then at some point the DRM layer will call our IRQ init callbacks,
>> which will initalize the interrupts but leave irqs_disabled as true,
>> which will also confuse some code somewhere at some point. And it will
>> only be set to false after we {runtime,}-suspend/resume.
>
> The drm irq stuff is _strictly_ a helper library, at least for modesetting
> drivers. Which means it will never call our callbacks on its own.
I was talking about drm_irq_install(), which is called by i915_driver_load().
>
>> This is why I had kept the runtime PM code only used by the runtime PM
>> stuff. Recently we tried to reuse the runtime PM interrupt code at
>> other contexts, got regressions and now we're fixing the regressions
>> using duct tape... Maybe the best approach would be to revert some
>> patches...
>
> Those patches where for soix, so feature work.
> -Daniel
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
--
Paulo Zanoni
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
