On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:03:09AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2015, ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > From: Ville Syrjälä
> >
> > chv_enable_pll() doesn't need to hold sb_lock for the entire duration of
> > the function. Drop the lock as soon as possible.
> >
> > valleyview_
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:03:09AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2015, ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > From: Ville Syrjälä
> >
> > chv_enable_pll() doesn't need to hold sb_lock for the entire duration of
> > the function. Drop the lock as soon as possible.
> >
> > valleyview_
On Tue, 26 May 2015, ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Ville Syrjälä
>
> chv_enable_pll() doesn't need to hold sb_lock for the entire duration of
> the function. Drop the lock as soon as possible.
>
> valleyview_set_cdclk() does a potential lock+unlock+lock+unlock cycle
> with sb_lock.
From: Ville Syrjälä
chv_enable_pll() doesn't need to hold sb_lock for the entire duration of
the function. Drop the lock as soon as possible.
valleyview_set_cdclk() does a potential lock+unlock+lock+unlock cycle
with sb_lock. Move Grab the lock a few lines earlier so we can make do
with a single
