If we don't have a sufficient number of free entries in the FIFO, we
proceed to do a write anyway. With this check we should have a clue if
that write actually failed or not.
After some discussion with Daniel Vetter regarding his original
complaint, we agreed upon this.
Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsk
On 02/08/2012 11:28 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:15:58 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> Bit a bikeshed comment, but I prefer explicit control flow instead of
>> playing tricks with the short-circuiting behaviour of &&. Mind if you can
>> change that, too?
>
> Whilst we're on the
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:15:58 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Bit a bikeshed comment, but I prefer explicit control flow instead of
> playing tricks with the short-circuiting behaviour of &&. Mind if you can
> change that, too?
Whilst we're on the subject of bikesheds, having an explicit tracepoint
f
On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 04:21:50PM +0100, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> If we don't have a sufficient number of free entries in the FIFO, we
> proceed to do a write anyway. With this check we should have a clue if
> that write actually failed or not.
>
> After some discussion with Daniel Vetter regarding
If we don't have a sufficient number of free entries in the FIFO, we
proceed to do a write anyway. With this check we should have a clue if
that write actually failed or not.
After some discussion with Daniel Vetter regarding his original
complaint, we agreed upon this.
Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsk
