From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Antonino A. Daplas" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.20 1/1] fbdev, mm: hecuba/E-Ink fbdev driver Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:43:36 +0800 Message-ID: <1172101416.4217.19.camel@daplas> References: <20070217104215.GB25512@localhost> <1171715652.5186.7.camel@lappy> <45a44e480702170525n9a15fafpb370cb93f1c1fcba@mail.gmail.com> <20070217135922.GA15373@linux-sh.org> <45a44e480702180331t7e76c396j1a9861f689d4186b@mail.gmail.com> <20070218235741.GA22298@linux-sh.org> <45a44e480702192013s7d49d05ai31e576f0448a485e@mail.gmail.com> <45a44e480702210855t344441c1xf8e081c82ece4e63@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HK152-0002g8-16 for linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:41:07 -0800 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.225]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1HK151-0002rP-OU for linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:41:00 -0800 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i11so4195668nzi for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:40:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <45a44e480702210855t344441c1xf8e081c82ece4e63@mail.gmail.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-fbdev-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: linux-fbdev-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Cc: James Simmons , Peter Zijlstra , Linux Kernel Development , linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Mundt , Geert Uytterhoeven On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 11:55 -0500, Jaya Kumar wrote: > On 2/20/07, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Don't you need a way to specify the maximum deferral time? E.g. a field in > > fb_info. > > > > You are right. I will need that. I could put that into struct > fb_deferred_io. So drivers would setup like: > Is it also possible to let the drivers do the 'deferred_io' themselves? Say, a driver that would flush the dirty pages on every VBLANK interrupt. > static struct fb_deferred_io hecubafb_defio = { > .delay = HZ, > .deferred_io = hecubafb_dpy_update, > }; > > where that would be: > struct fb_deferred_io { > unsigned long delay; /* delay between mkwrite and deferred handler */ > struct mutex lock; /* mutex that protects the page list */ > struct list_head pagelist; /* list of touched pages */ > struct delayed_work deferred_work; > void (*deferred_io)(struct fb_info *info, struct list_head > *pagelist); /* callback */ > }; > > and the driver would do: > ... > info->fbdefio = hecubafb_defio; > register_framebuffer... > > When the driver calls register_framebuffer and unregister_framebuffer, > I can then do the init and destruction of the other members of that > struct. Does this sound okay? It would be better if separate registering functions are created for this functionality (ie deferred_io_register/unregister). Tony ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV