<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/">
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - [BDW][EXT] igt@kms_flip@vblank-vs-dpms-suspend-interruptible hard LOCKUP on cpu 3"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100419#c14">Comment # 14</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - [BDW][EXT] igt@kms_flip@vblank-vs-dpms-suspend-interruptible hard LOCKUP on cpu 3"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100419">bug 100419</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:imre.deak@intel.com" title="Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>"> <span class="fn">Imre Deak</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to Marta Löfstedt from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=100419#c13">comment #13</a>)
<span class="quote">> For more information on the patch I reverted. The patch introduce a
> potential 200ms busy-wait when interrupts are turned off. Also, if the state
> isn't updated with-in those 200 ms, nothing is done.
> I believe this patch should be rewritten by audio developers.</span >
Agreed, using jiffies in hdac_wait_for_cmd_dmas() to determine when to time out
when interrupts are off (snd_hdac_bus_stop_cmd_io()/spin_lock_irq()) is bogus.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
<li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>