On Wed, 2024-11-06 at 18:50 -0300, Gustavo Sousa wrote: > In upcoming display changes, we will modify the DMC wakelock MMIO > waiting code to choose a non-sleeping variant implementation, because > the wakelock is also taking in atomic context. > > While xe provides an explicit parameter (namely "atomic") to prevent > xe_mmio_wait32() from sleeping, i915 does not and implements that > behavior when slow_timeout_ms is zero. > > So, for now, let's mimic what i915 does to allow for display to use > non-sleeping MMIO wait. In the future, we should come up with a better > and explicit interface for this behavior in i915, at least while display > code is not an independent entity with proper interfaces between xe and > i915. > > v2: > - Make the tone in comment the comment added in > __intel_wait_for_register() more explanatory than a FIXME-like text. > (Luca) > > Reviewed-by: Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Gustavo Sousa <gustavo.sousa@xxxxxxxxx> > --- Reviewed-by: Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@xxxxxxxxx> -- Cheers, Luca.
