From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id n24so1286863pyh for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:40:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] [PATCH 2.6.20 1/1] fbdev, mm: hecuba/E-Ink fbdev driver From: "Antonino A. Daplas" In-Reply-To: <45a44e480702210855t344441c1xf8e081c82ece4e63@mail.gmail.com> 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> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:43:36 +0800 Message-Id: <1172101416.4217.19.camel@daplas> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , James Simmons , Peter Zijlstra , Linux Kernel Development , linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Mundt List-ID: 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 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org