Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/msm: Register irq handler for each sub-system in mdss

From: Thierry Reding
Date: Thu Nov 20 2014 - 03:58:01 EST

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 09:18:47AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Hai Li <hali@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > All the sub-systems in mdss share the same irq. This change provides
> > the sub-systems with the interfaces to register/unregister their own
> > irq handlers.
> >
> > With this change, struct mdp5_kms does not have to keep the hdmi or
> > edp context.
> >
> So, I think the point of this is to better deal w/ different hw
> variants which do or do-not have hdmi, edp, dsi, etc..
> But, just playing devil's advocate here, it seems like it would be
> simpler to instead just do something like:
> if (priv->hdmi && (intr & MDP5_HW_INTR_STATUS_INTR_HDMI))
> hdmi_irq(0, priv->hdmi);
> if (priv->edp && (intr & MDP5_HW_INTR_STATUS_INTR_EDP))
> edp_irq(0, priv->edp);
> ... etc ...
> It is a little less elegant. But it is also less lines of code. I
> guess there will be plenty of necessary complexity as we add support
> for all mdp5 features. So avoiding some unnecessary complexity might
> be a good thing in the long run.
> If we really did want to make it more dynamic, we could always extend
> 'struct mdp_irq' to take both an irq mask and an initiator id, I
> suppose. I'm not sure if that is overkill. AFAICT we really only
> have 5 different subsystems to dispatch to (mdp5 itself, and
> dsi0/dsi1/hdmi/edp), so simply adding some if-not-null checks in
> mdp5_irq() seems pretty reasonable to me.

To me this just seems like a regular interrupt multiplexer, so
implementing it as an irq_chip would be the most appropriate. That way
you get all the goodness of a well-tested code base for free and you can
simply pass in the request_{threaded_,}irq()'s dev parameter.


Attachment: pgpYJw9jafR_q.pgp
Description: PGP signature