Dave Airlie wrote:
On 7/19/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:15:03 +1000 "Dave Airlie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Maybe we could add CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG and let DRM depend on it..
That would certainly be better than adding a sprinkle of architectures
in DR
From: "Dave Airlie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:15:03 +1000
> Maybe we could add CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG and let DRM depend on it..
There is already a "!EMULATED_CMPXCHG" guarding DRM, perhaps
ARM's Kconfig can set that if appropriate.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 01:21:41 -0700
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:15:03 +1000 "Dave Airlie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Maybe we could add CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG and let DRM depend on it..
>
> That would certainly be better than adding a sprinkle of archite
they need to grow a userpsace
cmpxchg as davem mentioned to go along with this, changing the drm now
isn't possible due to backwards compat..
For reference purposes, that position is not acceptable. We _never_ accept the
"oh I can't change my proposed kernel interface because I already have
On 7/19/07, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:05:49 -0700
> What's that code doing anyway? driver-private locking primitives?
It's an atomic lock shared with userspace. Whatever implementation is
used to do the lock on th
arm:
drivers/char/drm/drm_lock.c: In function `drm_lock_take':
drivers/char/drm/drm_lock.c:221: error: implicit declaration of function
`cmpxchg'
You might be able to use atomic_cmpxchg, which _is_ present
on all architectures. Or use a spinlock.
What's that code doing anyway? driver-priv
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:19:10 +0100 (IST) Dave Airlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> they need to grow a userpsace
> >> cmpxchg as davem mentioned to go along with this, changing the drm now
> >> isn't possible due to backwards compat..
> >
> > For reference purposes, that position is not acce
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:15:03 +1000 "Dave Airlie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe we could add CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG and let DRM depend on it..
That would certainly be better than adding a sprinkle of architectures
in DRM Kconfig dependencies.
I don't know how important DRM is on ARM. Zero?
-
T
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:02:03 +0100 (IST) Dave Airlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > arm:
> >
> > drivers/char/drm/drm_lock.c: In function `drm_lock_take':
> > drivers/char/drm/drm_lock.c:221: error: implicit declaration of function
> > `cmpxchg'
> >
> > You might be able to use atomic_cmpxc
On 7/19/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:15:03 +1000 "Dave Airlie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe we could add CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG and let DRM depend on it..
That would certainly be better than adding a sprinkle of architectures
in DRM Kconfig dependencies
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:05:49 -0700
> What's that code doing anyway? driver-private locking primitives?
It's an atomic lock shared with userspace. Whatever implementation is
used to do the lock on that object must be identical in the userspace
DRM bits.
arm:
drivers/char/drm/drm_lock.c: In function `drm_lock_take':
drivers/char/drm/drm_lock.c:221: error: implicit declaration of function
`cmpxchg'
You might be able to use atomic_cmpxchg, which _is_ present
on all architectures. Or use a spinlock.
What's that code doing anyway? driver-private
12 matches
Mail list logo
