Jon Smirl wrote: > Am I right in this interpretation? First I need to get the > bus/device/func of the card, then I need to tell this to the driver > (which must already know this info). I then get back the IRQ number, > which I then pass back to the driver (which already know this) and > tell it to turn interrupts on.
I think this is another case of either "it seemed like a good idea at the time" or "these are the only tools we have to do the job". I think what the user-mode code *really* wants is to be able to tell the kernel, "I want to use interrupt based waiting." The kernel can then do it's own thing and tell user-mode "yes" or "no". After I get all my updates committed to support PCI MGA cards, I'll look at modifying the MGA DRM for this. > Is this convolution a work around for the fight between DRM and fbdev > over who controls the interrupt handler? Then in a system where > fbdev/DRM are linked and coordinated these calls can be converted to > NOPs, right? I think if we change the paradigm a bit, we can use the (new) API to determine when to enable / disable interrupts. When the last file handle is closed that asked to use interrupt based waiting, the interrupts can be disabled. Fun stuff. :) ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games. How far can you shotput a projector? How fast can you ride your desk chair down the office luge track? If you want to score the big prize, get to know the little guy. Play to win an NEC 61" plasma display: http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20 -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
