From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758911Ab2IEPre (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2012 11:47:34 -0400 Received: from mail-vb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:60541 "EHLO mail-vb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754101Ab2IEPrd (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2012 11:47:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20120905132724.GC5357@phenom.ffwll.local> References: <27240C0AC20F114CBF8149A2696CBE4A177306@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20120905132724.GC5357@phenom.ffwll.local> Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 10:47:32 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: kypNMbpLu_sqoY7E6qJQUvpv-7s Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Patch 0/1]drm_irq: Introducing the irq_thread support From: Rob Clark To: "Liu, Chuansheng" , "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org' (linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org)" , "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" , "alexander.deucher@amd.com" , "airlied@redhat.com" , "Shi, Yang A" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Daniel Vetter 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@ffwll.ch > Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48 > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel