On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:06:20AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
>
> Looks like this code does not need to wait atomically since it
> otherwise takes the mutex.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> index 304fc9637026..a7530cf612d7 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> @@ -9753,8 +9753,8 @@ static void broadwell_set_cdclk(struct drm_device *dev,
> int cdclk)
> val |= LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK;
> I915_WRITE(LCPLL_CTL, val);
>
> - if (wait_for_atomic_us(I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL) &
> - LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK_DONE, 1))
> + if (wait_for_us(I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL) &
> + LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK_DONE, 1))
Thinking about wait_for_seconds and friends from before, does this read
better as
if (wait_for(I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL) & LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK_DONE,
wait_for_microseconds(1))
?
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
