On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:59:47AM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > 2013/8/21 Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch>: > > If we don't use the return value of a mmio read our coding style is to > > use the POSTING_READ macro. This avoids cluttering the mmio traces. > > > > Similarly for busy loops to wait for a bit to flip we use the _NOTRACE > > variant to avoid filling up the tracebuffers with gunk. Spotted while > > reading some follow-up patches from Paulo. > > > > While at it add the missing posting read in the lcpll enable function > > that Paulo spotted. > > > > Cc: Paulo Zanoni <przan...@gmail.com> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> > > Reviewed-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zan...@intel.com> > > I'm pretty sure I added many other wait_for calls without the _NOTRACE > in the past...
Hm, you're right and I even missed one wait_for loop without _NOTRACE in the lcpll code. On further though we only use _NOTRACE consistently in the mmio vfuncs for forcewake and the gt fifo stuff. Which makes sense since those are just the details of how to write a register in the gt. But the actual delay loops in the modeset code are probably rather interesting, so I now think we should keep them ;-) I'll resend with just the posting read stuff. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
