On Thursday 18 September 2014 02:09 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 06:51:50PM +0530, deepa...@linux.intel.com wrote:
From: Deepak S
Based on the HW team inputs. We can should not wait for the old ack,
Waiting for old ack might fail, when other forcewake came before the
prese
On Thursday 18 September 2014 06:38 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 01:53:13PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:39:25AM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 06:51:50PM +0530, deepa...@linux.intel.com wrote:
From: Deepak S
Based on the HW
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 01:53:13PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:39:25AM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 06:51:50PM +0530, deepa...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > > From: Deepak S
> > >
> > > Based on the HW team inputs. We can should not wait for th
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:39:25AM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 06:51:50PM +0530, deepa...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > From: Deepak S
> >
> > Based on the HW team inputs. We can should not wait for the old ack,
> > Waiting for old ack might fail, when other forcewake came
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 06:51:50PM +0530, deepa...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Deepak S
>
> Based on the HW team inputs. We can should not wait for the old ack,
> Waiting for old ack might fail, when other forcewake came before the
> present one is desserted.
>
> for example, if forcewake bit
From: Deepak S
Based on the HW team inputs. We can should not wait for the old ack,
Waiting for old ack might fail, when other forcewake came before the
present one is desserted.
for example, if forcewake bit 0 was set and before it could get cleared
forcewake bit 1 got set, HW eventually clear
