On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Olof Johansson olof@lixom.net wrote:
The problem as I see it is that it's unknown how many machines depends on previous behavior. If it's only Pixel 2015 then I think a whitelist would be just fine.
Considering how many problems we historically have had with backlight handling, I would strongly urge people to *not* start going down the whitelist approach.
If the backlight doesn't get set up correctly, the machine might as well be considered dead. Very few people are going to give good reports of it. So the backlight code needs to bend oevr backwards in being robust even more so than most other code, and "whitelist known-working setups" is absolutely the reverse of robust. It's a hack, and it's guaranteed to not be maintainable.
Yes, yes, we have whitelists for other things. I hate them in other places too. But things like "this device has very odd audio configuration" is very different from "this machine appears dead on boot", for example.
So reverting quickly is definitely the right thing to do. Or applying the patch that apparently fixes it for Olof, and hopefully fixes it in general - without any kind of random "on _this_ machine we do _that_" crap.
If drm people don't want the revert, send me a pull request with the fix.
Imo revert. With all the QA awol fail we've suffered the past few months we've become a bit too lax imo with reverting fast, and the point of the split-out commit was to allow exactly that.
On top I don't really like the casting Maarten's current hack does, we probably need a per-encoder ->sanitize hook for this stuff. Better to retry for 4.5. Can you pls push the revert?
Thanks, Daniel
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Olof Johansson olof@lixom.net wrote:
The problem as I see it is that it's unknown how many machines depends on previous behavior. If it's only Pixel 2015 then I think a whitelist would be just fine.
Considering how many problems we historically have had with backlight handling, I would strongly urge people to *not* start going down the whitelist approach.
If the backlight doesn't get set up correctly, the machine might as well be considered dead. Very few people are going to give good reports of it. So the backlight code needs to bend oevr backwards in being robust even more so than most other code, and "whitelist known-working setups" is absolutely the reverse of robust. It's a hack, and it's guaranteed to not be maintainable.
Yes, yes, we have whitelists for other things. I hate them in other places too. But things like "this device has very odd audio configuration" is very different from "this machine appears dead on boot", for example.
So reverting quickly is definitely the right thing to do. Or applying the patch that apparently fixes it for Olof, and hopefully fixes it in general - without any kind of random "on _this_ machine we do _that_" crap.
If drm people don't want the revert, send me a pull request with the fix.
Imo revert. With all the QA awol fail we've suffered the past few months we've become a bit too lax imo with reverting fast, and the point of the split-out commit was to allow exactly that.
Based on the logs from Olof, looks like a modeset would be required to enable backlight, instead of just cranking up the brightness. So agreed on the revert.
On top I don't really like the casting Maarten's current hack does, we probably need a per-encoder ->sanitize hook for this stuff. Better to retry for 4.5. Can you pls push the revert?
Moreover, you can't just enable the backlight at will, it needs to follow the panel power sequence. You have to enable the PWM first, and toggle the power sequencer backlight bit after that. Encoder specific hooks can handle that. Though might still be safest to just force a modeset on machines in weird state at driver load.
BR, Jani.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Jani Nikula jani.nikula@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch wrote:
Imo revert. With all the QA awol fail we've suffered the past few months we've become a bit too lax imo with reverting fast, and the point of the split-out commit was to allow exactly that.
Based on the logs from Olof, looks like a modeset would be required to enable backlight, instead of just cranking up the brightness. So agreed on the revert.
Should I just do the revert myself in my tree, or will I get it through the drm tree?
Linus
----- Original Message -----
From: "Linus Torvalds" torvalds@linux-foundation.org To: "Jani Nikula" jani.nikula@linux.intel.com Cc: "Daniel Vetter" daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, "Olof Johansson" olof@lixom.net, "Maarten Lankhorst" maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com, "Dave Airlie" airlied@redhat.com, "Duncan Laurie" dlaurie@chromium.org, "dri-devel" dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, "Linux Kernel Mailing List" linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sent: Thursday, 19 November, 2015 2:18:50 AM Subject: Re: Regression on Chromebook Pixel 2015 due to i915 fastboot always-on
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Jani Nikula jani.nikula@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch wrote:
Imo revert. With all the QA awol fail we've suffered the past few months we've become a bit too lax imo with reverting fast, and the point of the split-out commit was to allow exactly that.
Based on the logs from Olof, looks like a modeset would be required to enable backlight, instead of just cranking up the brightness. So agreed on the revert.
Should I just do the revert myself in my tree, or will I get it through the drm tree?
I'm assuming I'll get a pull request from Jani by the end of the week, and I'll pass it on to you as per normal, but it might be good if he could accelerate that.
Dave.
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, David Airlie airlied@redhat.com wrote:
I'm assuming I'll get a pull request from Jani by the end of the week, and I'll pass it on to you as per normal, but it might be good if he could accelerate that.
Done. http://mid.gmane.org/87vb8yt4a2.fsf@intel.com
BR, Jani.
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Daniel Vetter -
David Airlie -
Jani Nikula -
Linus Torvalds