On 3/22/24 01:32, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 21:17, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> On 3/21/24 15:08, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>>> On 21/03/2024 20:01, Sean Anderson wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/24 13:25, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>>>>> On 21/03/2024 17:52, Sean Anderson wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/20/24 02:53, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20/03/2024 00:51, Sean Anderson wrote:
>>>>>>> Do we need to handle interrupts while either delayed work is being done?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we do need a delayed work, would just one work be enough which
>>>>>>> handles both HPD_EVENT and HPD_IRQ, instead of two?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe, but then we need to determine which pending events we need to
>>>>>> handle. I think since we have only two events it will be easier to just
>>>>>> have separate workqueues.
>>>>>
>>>>> The less concurrency, the better...Which is why it would be nice to do it
>>>>> all in the threaded irq.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, but we can use a mutex for this which means there is not too much
>>>> interesting going on.
>>>
>>> Ok. Yep, if we get (hopefully) a single mutex with clearly defined fields
>>> that it protects, I'm ok with workqueues.
>>>
>>> I'd still prefer just one workqueue, though...
>>
>> Yeah, but then we need a spinlock or something to tell the workqueue what it
>> should do.
>
> Yep. We could also always look at the HPD (if we drop the big sleeps) in the
> wq, and have a flag for the HPD IRQ, which would reduce the state to a single
> bit.
How about something like
zynqmp_dp_irq_handler(...)
{
/* Read status and handle underflow/overflow/vblank */
status &= ZYNQMP_DP_INT_HPD_EVENT | ZYNQMP_DP_INT_HPD_IRQ;
if (status) {
atomic_or(status, &dp->status);
return IRQ_WAKE_THREAD;
}
return IRQ_HANDLED;
}
zynqmp_dp_thread_handler(...)
{
status = atomic_xchg(&dp->status, 0);
/* process HPD stuff */
}
which gets rid of the workqueue too.
--Sean
