| Message ID | 1369155800-19654-2-git-send-email-imre.deak@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
We have another one of these in the wait_for register wait macro in intel_drv.h Can you please amend your patch with that fixed up, too? Thanks, Daniel On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> wrote: > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c > index 5d24503..98cd8535 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c > @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ gmbus_wait_hw_status(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, > * need to wake up periodically and check that ourselves. */ > I915_WRITE(GMBUS4 + reg_offset, gmbus4_irq_en); > > - for (i = 0; i < msecs_to_jiffies(50) + 1; i++) { > + for (i = 0; i < msecs_to_jiffies_timeout(50); i++) { > prepare_to_wait(&dev_priv->gmbus_wait_queue, &wait, > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); > > -- > 1.8.1.2 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 19:20 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > We have another one of these in the wait_for register wait macro in > intel_drv.h Can you please amend your patch with that fixed up, too? I noticed it, but didn't change it since we don't need there the +1 adjustment to begin with. The time_after() check already makes sure we wait at least MS amount. So I think we should remove +1 from there.. --Imre
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 19:20 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> We have another one of these in the wait_for register wait macro in >> intel_drv.h Can you please amend your patch with that fixed up, too? > > I noticed it, but didn't change it since we don't need there the +1 > adjustment to begin with. The time_after() check already makes sure we > wait at least MS amount. So I think we should remove +1 from there.. Hm, right. Looks like the important part of commit 1d5bfac96f1e1856fbdb3f06679691e5b9c2ba8f Author: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> Date: Thu Mar 28 00:03:25 2013 +0100 drm/i915: fix up _wait_for macro was to just recheck the condition after the timeout expired. I agree that this is a separate patch. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c index 5d24503..98cd8535 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ gmbus_wait_hw_status(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, * need to wake up periodically and check that ourselves. */ I915_WRITE(GMBUS4 + reg_offset, gmbus4_irq_en); - for (i = 0; i < msecs_to_jiffies(50) + 1; i++) { + for (i = 0; i < msecs_to_jiffies_timeout(50); i++) { prepare_to_wait(&dev_priv->gmbus_wait_queue, &wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)