linux-kernel - Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] [PATCH 2.6.20 1/1] fbdev, mm: hecuba/E-Ink fbdev driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:43:36 +0800
From:	"Antonino A. Daplas" <adaplas@...il.com>
To:	linux-fbdev-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Cc:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Linux Kernel Development <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Subject: Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] [PATCH 2.6.20 1/1] fbdev, mm: hecuba/E-Ink
	fbdev driver

On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 11:55 -0500, Jaya Kumar wrote: 
> On 2/20/07, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> 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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/