On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:29:02AM +0530, Arun R Murthy wrote: > In wait for vblank use usleep_range, which will use hrtimers instead of > msleep. Using msleep(1~20) there are more chances of sleeping for 20ms. > Using usleep_range uses hrtimers and hence are precise, worst case will > trigger an interrupt at the higher/max timeout. > > Change-log: On replacing msleep(1) with usleep_range(1000, 2000) we have > noticed the time consumed by wait for vblank is ~4ms to ~17ms. > > Change-Id: I6672e5697b01987a6d069ab06e76d97287b1f7ae > Signed-off-by: Arun R Murthy <arun.r.murthy@xxxxxxxxx> No. I feel strongly that we do not want more wait_for_X() with strange semantics. http://sweng.the-davies.net/Home/rustys-api-design-manifesto -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
