On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 13:53:59 -0700 Keith Packard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:03:33 -0700, Jesse Barnes <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > + udelay(100); > > udelay isn't my favorite function to use while waiting for hardware to > clean up. Do we expect to get into this path regularly? Is it just when > hardware is broken? How many times around this loop do we go before > things work? > > If we only occasionally enter this loop, and if we end up going around > several times, it seems like using msleep would be nicer to the system. We enter it enough that a sleep would be preferable (3-5 times in my testing). I'll fix it up and resend. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
