[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150112161233.GC16118@ulmo.nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 17:12:34 +0100
From: Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@...il.com>, <airlied@...ux.ie>,
<airlied@...hat.com>, <damien.lespiau@...el.com>,
<dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpu:drm:Change calls to mdelay to msleep in the
functions,send_pkg_prepare and send_pkg_done for the
file,mdfld_dsi_pkg_sender.c
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 01:29:27PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-01-10 at 23:31 -0500, Nicholas Krause wrote:
> > Changes various calls in the functions,send_pkg_prepare and send_pkg_done
> > for mdelay to msleep. These changes are needed due to use working with
> > various sleep modes supported by this hardware and thus needing to sleep
> > for a small duration instead of using the respectful delay function due
> > to the need to sleep rather then busy loop the CPU(s) and waste CPU cycles
> > on the system that could be used to handle other tasks.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@...il.com>
>
> NAK
>
> Like every other TODO you've been mucking with at random this one is
> there for a reason.
>
> We can't sleep at this point.
From a quick look it seems like the only reason why we can't sleep is
because sender->lock is a spinlock. But it would seem that it could
simply be a mutex, in which case the delays could become sleeps.
Do you happen to remember if there were specific reasons to make this a
spinlock rather than a mutex?
Thierry
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists