On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:06:20AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > > Looks like this code does not need to wait atomically since it > otherwise takes the mutex. > > Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > index 304fc9637026..a7530cf612d7 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > @@ -9753,8 +9753,8 @@ static void broadwell_set_cdclk(struct drm_device *dev, int cdclk) > val |= LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK; > I915_WRITE(LCPLL_CTL, val); > > - if (wait_for_atomic_us(I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL) & > - LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK_DONE, 1)) > + if (wait_for_us(I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL) & > + LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK_DONE, 1)) Thinking about wait_for_seconds and friends from before, does this read better as if (wait_for(I915_READ(LCPLL_CTL) & LCPLL_CD_SOURCE_FCLK_DONE, wait_for_microseconds(1)) ? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
