On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 20:13 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Pandiyan, Dhinakaran (2018-03-28 20:01:40)
> >
> > On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 18:53 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > As intel_wait_for_register_fw() may use, and if successful only use, a
> > > busy-wait loop, the might_sleep()
Quoting Pandiyan, Dhinakaran (2018-03-28 20:01:40)
>
> On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 18:53 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > 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
On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 18:53 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> 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
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
