6 Jul
2017
6 Jul
'17
5:59 p.m.
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 09:28:40AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com writes:
Maybe, or maybe we want to turn the interrupt on in that case? That's what the old ioctl does.
That's what I suggested in my reply to Daniel's review. Even if we add the accurate function, we'll still need the interrupt-enable case as a fallback for drivers which don't support the accurate path, right?
TBH I didn't even consider that case, but yeah makes sense. Otherwise the counter won't start to tick and the result of the query is pretty much useless.
I was mostly thinking of the 'seq = query(); wait(seq + n);' pattern where we can avoid doing the full update more than once if we enable the interrupt already during the query.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC