From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sven Luther Subject: Re: Vertical retrace interrupts? Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 22:32:45 +0100 Sender: linux-fbdev-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <20030131213245.GA2905@iliana> References: <1043893384.1052.127.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1043927116.7576.40.camel@thor> <1043968889.1002.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1044012272.6540.14.camel@thor> <1044038091.1596.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1044040336.6385.92.camel@thor> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable Return-path: Received: from smtp-out-6.wanadoo.fr ([193.252.19.25] helo=mel-rto6.wanadoo.fr) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 18ein2-0003Ix-00 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:33:36 -0800 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1044040336.6385.92.camel@thor> Errors-To: linux-fbdev-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: Michel =?iso-8859-1?Q?D=E4nzer?= Cc: Antonino Daplas , Fredrik Noring , Linux Fbdev development list On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 08:12:16PM +0100, Michel D=E4nzer wrote: > On Fre, 2003-01-31 at 19:35, Antonino Daplas wrote: > > On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 19:24, Michel D=E4nzer wrote: > > >=20 > > > You don't need X to use the DRM, just some privileged client to > > > initialize it. > >=20 > > You're right. I just realized that since DRM already has an interrup= t > > handler, it is unwise for fbdev to install its own interrupt handler > > too, as this will fatally lock up the machine when DRM and fbdev are > > loaded simultaneously. > >=20 > > So, how about this? Let fbdev have its own vblank ioctl, but for fbd= ev > > drivers with a DRM counterpart, fbdev will just call the DRM > > wait_vblank() and send_vbl_signals() functions. Do you think this i= s > > doable, I haven't examined the code thoroughly? =20 > >=20 > > The main goal is too avoid having 2 independent interrupt handlers fo= r > > one device. >=20 > A noble goal, but the framebuffer device would still need its own code > when the DRM isn't active, so I'm afraid there's no way around code > duplication, unless we could somehow factor out the common code for the > two to share? Could it not be that the fbdev sort of minimally intialize the DRM when it is not already active ? After all, the fbdev knows as much, if not more, than the X driver about the graphic chips state, especially if the X driver is using the fbdev. Friendly, Sven Luther ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com