On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:43:49PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 03/03/16 15:11, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 02:36:44PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>From: Tvrtko Ursulin
> >>
> >>Currently the wait_for_atomic_us only allows for a millisecond
> >>granularity which is n
On 03/03/16 15:11, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 02:36:44PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin
Currently the wait_for_atomic_us only allows for a millisecond
granularity which is not nice towards callers requesting small
micro-second waits.
Hmm, by granularity I
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 02:36:44PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> From: Tvrtko Ursulin
>
> Currently the wait_for_atomic_us only allows for a millisecond
> granularity which is not nice towards callers requesting small
> micro-second waits.
Hmm, by granularity I think of the interval between CON
From: Tvrtko Ursulin
Currently the wait_for_atomic_us only allows for a millisecond
granularity which is not nice towards callers requesting small
micro-second waits.
Re-implement it so micro-second granularity is really supported
and not just in the name of the macro.
This has another benefici
