On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 04:18:50PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote: > Yep. Btw, I also pondered if we could just make this part of > wait_for(), but not sure if we want the corresponding code increase > (and for -stable we'd want a minimal diff). It's not required in other > cases, although it could speed up the wait in some cases. AFAIR Ville > did some measurements on this. The majority use intel_wait_for_register() which includes the spin then sleep (i.e. a double wait_for()) as suggested by Ville. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
