As intel_wait_for_register_fw() may use, and if successful only use, a
busy-wait loop, the might_sleep() warning is a little over-zealous.
Restrict it to a might_sleep_if() a slow timeout is specified (and so
the caller authorises use of a usleep).
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
index f37ecfc69e49..44c4654443ba 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
@@ -1996,7 +1996,7 @@ int __intel_wait_for_register(struct drm_i915_private
*dev_priv,
u32 reg_value;
int ret;
- might_sleep();
+ might_sleep_if(slow_timeout_ms);
spin_lock_irq(&dev_priv->uncore.lock);
intel_uncore_forcewake_get__locked(dev_priv, fw);
@@ -2008,7 +2008,7 @@ int __intel_wait_for_register(struct drm_i915_private
*dev_priv,
intel_uncore_forcewake_put__locked(dev_priv, fw);
spin_unlock_irq(&dev_priv->uncore.lock);
- if (ret)
+ if (ret && slow_timeout_ms)
ret = __wait_for(reg_value = I915_READ_NOTRACE(reg),
(reg_value & mask) == value,
slow_timeout_ms * 1000, 10, 1000);
--
2.16.3
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
