From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Anholt Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Ensure that while(INREG()) are bounded. Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:23:37 -0700 Message-ID: <87lj8jmo4m.fsf@pollan.anholt.net> References: <1281107514-3876-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1264154919==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1281107514-3876-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: Chris Wilson , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org --===============1264154919== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" --=-=-= On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 16:11:54 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > Add a new macro, wait_for, to simplify the act of waiting on a register > to change state. wait_for() takes three arguments, the condition to > inspect on every loop, the maximum amount of time to wait and whether to > yield the cpu for a length of time after each check. These failures seem DRM_ERROR()-worthy. What do you think? But I do like the looks of this patch. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkxcfVkACgkQHUdvYGzw6veNJACeNq3FelJiwUanxhTdV8eE7fC1 pqwAnRdluAV2nYuOwvpo9Q6/FthjlRve =Xv/c -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- --===============1264154919== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx --===============1264154919==--