On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 03:15:32PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 04:07:59PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Doing a 1s wait (tops) with the cpu is a bit excessive. Tune it down
> > like everything else in that code.
> >
> > Cc: Naresh Kumar Kachhi <naresh.kumar.kachhi@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> > index 05969f03c0c1..966d8f72da45 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> > @@ -476,7 +476,7 @@ static bool stop_ring(struct intel_engine_cs *ring)
> >
> > if (!IS_GEN2(ring->dev)) {
> > I915_WRITE_MODE(ring, _MASKED_BIT_ENABLE(STOP_RING));
> > - if (wait_for_atomic((I915_READ_MODE(ring) & MODE_IDLE) != 0, 1000)) {
> > + if (wait_for((I915_READ_MODE(ring) & MODE_IDLE) != 0, 1000)) {
> > DRM_ERROR("%s :timed out trying to stop ring\n", ring->name);
>
> Please fix the "%s :timed" here as well.
Fixed.
>
> Ok, it seems like I only thought that wait_for_atomic was microseconds,
> but wait_for_atomic_us() was a whole seperate interface.
And assumed that counts for an ack.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
