On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 02:04:55PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > On 02/02/16 11:57, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:06:19AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >>From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >>This is for callers who want micro-second precision but are not > >>waiting from the atomic context. > > > >linux/time.h provides us with USEC_PER_MSEC that would help to break up > >these large numbers better for human consumption. > > > >2000 -> 2*USEC_PER_SEC > >10 -> 10*USEC_PER_MSEC > > > >Maybe: > > > >#define wait_for_seconds(x) ((x)*USEC_PER_SEC) > >#define wait_for_milliseconds(x) ((x)*USEC_PER_MSEC) > > > >if (_wait_for((I915_READ(pp_stat_reg) & mask) == value, > > wait_for_seconds(5) /* timeout */, > > wait_for_millseconds(10) /* interval */)) > > There are only two callers where it would be a bit interesting so it > just feels like needless change to me at the moment. Better to keep > the established conventions for these two macros. I am a bit more concerned that there are any users of _wait_for() outside of the header. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
