On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 10:14:12AM +0530, Murthy, Arun R wrote:
On Thursday 27 March 2014 10:18 AM, Murthy, Arun R wrote:
On Tuesday 25 March 2014 03:16 PM, Murthy, Arun R wrote:
On Tuesday 25 March 2014 03:02 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk
On Thursday 27 March 2014 10:18 AM, Murthy, Arun R wrote:
On Tuesday 25 March 2014 03:16 PM, Murthy, Arun R wrote:
On Tuesday 25 March 2014 03:02 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:28:22PM +0530, Arun R Murthy
On Tuesday 25 March 2014 03:16 PM, Murthy, Arun R wrote:
On Tuesday 25 March 2014 03:02 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:28:22PM +0530, Arun R Murthy wrote:
In wait for vblank use usleep_range, which will use
In wait for vblank use usleep_range, which will use hrtimers instead of
msleep. Using msleep(1~20) there are more chances of sleeping for 20ms.
Using usleep_range uses hrtimers and hence are precise, worst case will
trigger an interrupt at the higher/max timeout.
As per kernel document
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:28:22PM +0530, Arun R Murthy wrote:
In wait for vblank use usleep_range, which will use hrtimers instead of
msleep. Using msleep(1~20) there are more chances of sleeping for 20ms.
Using usleep_range uses hrtimers and hence are precise, worst case will
trigger an
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:28:22PM +0530, Arun R Murthy wrote:
In wait for vblank use usleep_range, which will use hrtimers instead of
msleep. Using msleep(1~20) there are more chances of sleeping for 20ms.
Using usleep_range
On Tuesday 25 March 2014 03:02 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:28:22PM +0530, Arun R Murthy wrote:
In wait for vblank use usleep_range, which will use hrtimers instead of
msleep. Using msleep(1~20) there are
