On Mon, 2015-01-12 at 17:12 +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 01:29:27PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > On Sat, 2015-01-10 at 23:31 -0500, Nicholas Krause wrote: > > > Changes various calls in the functions,send_pkg_prepare and send_pkg_done > > > for mdelay to msleep. These changes are needed due to use working with > > > various sleep modes supported by this hardware and thus needing to sleep > > > for a small duration instead of using the respectful delay function due > > > to the need to sleep rather then busy loop the CPU(s) and waste CPU cycles > > > on the system that could be used to handle other tasks. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > NAK > > > > Like every other TODO you've been mucking with at random this one is > > there for a reason. > > > > We can't sleep at this point. > > From a quick look it seems like the only reason why we can't sleep is > because sender->lock is a spinlock. But it would seem that it could > simply be a mutex, in which case the delays could become sleeps. > > Do you happen to remember if there were specific reasons to make this a > spinlock rather than a mutex? I don't remember the full details and since I don't currently have a test platform for it, and its obsolete I don't want to touch it. If someone else does fine, but they need to verify it on real hardware. Alan _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
