As intel_wait_for_register_fw() may use, and if successful only use, a busy-wait loop, the might_sleep() warning is a little over-zealous. Restrict it to a might_sleep_if() a slow timeout is specified (and so the caller authorises use of a usleep). Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c index a0d7e0cfbd32..e7540bb9786c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c @@ -1996,7 +1996,7 @@ int __intel_wait_for_register(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u32 reg_value; int ret; - might_sleep(); + might_sleep_if(slow_timeout_ms); spin_lock_irq(&dev_priv->uncore.lock); intel_uncore_forcewake_get__locked(dev_priv, fw); @@ -2008,7 +2008,7 @@ int __intel_wait_for_register(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, intel_uncore_forcewake_put__locked(dev_priv, fw); spin_unlock_irq(&dev_priv->uncore.lock); - if (ret) + if (ret && slow_timeout_ms) ret = __wait_for(reg_value = I915_READ_NOTRACE(reg), (reg_value & mask) == value, slow_timeout_ms * 1000, 10, 1000); -- 2.16.3 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
