On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:30:43PM +0000, Michal Wajdeczko wrote: > There is no need to use macro as we can use generic function. > And as side effect we can lower driver footprint. > > Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > 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 eeb828c..2fce1a7 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > @@ -8693,11 +8693,11 @@ static void hsw_disable_lcpll(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, > val |= LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK; > I915_WRITE(LCPLL_CTL, val); > > - if (wait_for_us(I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL) & > - LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK_DONE, 1)) > + if (__intel_wait_for_register_fw(dev_priv, LCPLL_CTL, > + LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK_DONE, > + LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK_DONE, > + 1, 0, &val)) This changes it from a I915_READ() to I915_READ_FW. It should be safe to drop the forcewakes, but the jury is out over the spinlock. Can anyone else concurrently access the same cacheline? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
