From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomi Valkeinen Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAP: DSS2: Have separate irq handlers for DISPC and DSI Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:11:37 +0200 Message-ID: <1298027497.24062.53.camel@deskari> References: <1297952702-13419-1-git-send-email-archit@ti.com> <91F20383AC6A5F4DB94C692112281213B4C15EBB91@dlee07.ent.ti.com> <4D5E3D35.9000902@ti.com> <1298023223.24062.24.camel@deskari> <4D5E5275.4020002@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bear.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.41]:40274 "EHLO bear.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753719Ab1BRLLl (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Feb 2011 06:11:41 -0500 Received: from dlep36.itg.ti.com ([157.170.170.91]) by bear.ext.ti.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id p1IBBeOk007160 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 05:11:40 -0600 Received: from dlep26.itg.ti.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dlep36.itg.ti.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p1IBBetn027391 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 05:11:40 -0600 (CST) Received: from dlee73.ent.ti.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dlep26.itg.ti.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p1IBBee9021351 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 05:11:40 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <4D5E5275.4020002@ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "Taneja, Archit" Cc: "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "Cousson, Benoit" On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 05:05 -0600, Taneja, Archit wrote: > Hi, > > One strange thing I see though is the increment with and without printks > in the irq handler in both the cases. I always see increments of 2 when > I put prints. I see 3 when I don't. That's a bit peculiar. Hmm. That's probably because prints make it slower. TE_TRIGGER and VC0_IRQ probably happen at different times. If you have printks, they are combined into one interrupt. If no printk, the code is faster and handles them separately. > Behavior looks as expected. I guess we can go without DSS_IRQSTATUS > then. Should I send out a patch? Also, should we remove DSS_IRQSTATUS in > totality from the code now? Ok. Yes, please send a patch. Is DSS_IRQSTATUS used anywhere after the patch? I guess not. But let's leave the define there, as the register still exists. Tomi