On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 06:31:08PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > The existing code (which I changed last) was very convoluted. I believe > it was attempting to skip the overclock portion if the previous pcode > write failed. When I last touched the code, I was preserving this > behavior. There is some benefit to doing it that way in that if the > first pcode access fails, the later is likely invalid. > > Having a bit more confidence in my understanding of how things work, I > now feel it's better to have clear, readable, code than to try to skip > over this one operation in an unusual case. > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
