[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 02/12] drm/i915: Do not wait atomically for display clocks

[Chris Wilson]

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:06:20AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
> 
> Looks like this code does not need to wait atomically since it
> otherwise takes the mutex.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  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