[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 04/37] drm/i915: rework locking for intel_dpio|sbi_read|write

2012-12-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:54:47PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:06:44 +0100 > Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > Spinning for up to 200 us with interrupts locked out is not good. So > > let's just spin (and even that seems to be excessive). > > > > And we don't call these function

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 04/37] drm/i915: rework locking for intel_dpio|sbi_read|write

2012-12-12 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:00:34 +0100 Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:54:47PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:06:44 +0100 > > Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > Spinning for up to 200 us with interrupts locked out is not good. So > > > let's just spin (and even

[PATCH 04/37] drm/i915: rework locking for intel_dpio|sbi_read|write

2012-12-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
Spinning for up to 200 us with interrupts locked out is not good. So let's just spin (and even that seems to be excessive). And we don't call these functions from interrupt context, so this is not required. Besides that doing anything in interrupt contexts which might take a few hundred us is a no

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 04/37] drm/i915: rework locking for intel_dpio|sbi_read|write

2012-12-12 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:00:34 +0100 Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:54:47PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:06:44 +0100 > > Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > Spinning for up to 200 us with interrupts locked out is not good. So > > > let's just spin (and even

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 04/37] drm/i915: rework locking for intel_dpio|sbi_read|write

2012-12-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:54:47PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:06:44 +0100 > Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > Spinning for up to 200 us with interrupts locked out is not good. So > > let's just spin (and even that seems to be excessive). > > > > And we don't call these function

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 04/37] drm/i915: rework locking for intel_dpio|sbi_read|write

2012-12-12 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:06:44 +0100 Daniel Vetter wrote: > Spinning for up to 200 us with interrupts locked out is not good. So > let's just spin (and even that seems to be excessive). > > And we don't call these functions from interrupt context, so this is > not required. Besides that doing anyt

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 04/37] drm/i915: rework locking for intel_dpio|sbi_read|write

2012-12-12 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:06:44 +0100 Daniel Vetter wrote: > Spinning for up to 200 us with interrupts locked out is not good. So > let's just spin (and even that seems to be excessive). > > And we don't call these functions from interrupt context, so this is > not required. Besides that doing anyt

[PATCH 04/37] drm/i915: rework locking for intel_dpio|sbi_read|write

2012-12-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
Spinning for up to 200 us with interrupts locked out is not good. So let's just spin (and even that seems to be excessive). And we don't call these functions from interrupt context, so this is not required. Besides that doing anything in interrupt contexts which might take a few hundred us is a no