This message contains a list of some post-2.6.36 regressions introduced before 2.6.37, for which there are no fixes in the mainline known to the tracking team. If any of them have been fixed already, please let us know.
If you know of any other unresolved post-2.6.36 regressions, please let us know either and we'll add them to the list. Also, please let us know if any of the entries below are invalid.
Each entry from the list will be sent additionally in an automatic reply to this message with CCs to the people involved in reporting and handling the issue.
Listed regressions statistics:
Date Total Pending Unresolved ---------------------------------------- 2011-02-03 118 36 31 2010-12-30 85 32 26 2010-12-19 73 28 24 2010-12-03 55 25 19 2010-11-19 39 29 25
Unresolved regressions ----------------------
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27892 Subject : SNB: GPU hang with Slip xscreensaver Submitter : Takashi Iwai tiwai@suse.de Date : 2011-01-31 12:06 (3 days old)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27842 Subject : [regression?] hang with 2.6.37 on a BTRFS test machine Submitter : Martin Steigerwald Martin@lichtvoll.de Date : 2011-01-23 12:06 (11 days old) Message-ID : 201101231306.23069.Martin@lichtvoll.de References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=129578445613283&w=2
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27642 Subject : 2.6.37 says WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:1287 setup_local_APIC+0x18f/0x263() Submitter : Rob Landley rlandley@parallels.com Date : 2011-01-18 13:11 (16 days old) Message-ID : 4D359188.3040408@parallels.com References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=129535632319892&w=2
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27532 Subject : ath9k prevents CPU from entering lower C-states Submitter : Thomas Bächler thomas@archlinux.org Date : 2011-01-24 22:43 (10 days old)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27402 Subject : Atheros adapter no longer loads firmware Submitter : Michal Vaner vorner@ucw.cz Date : 2011-01-23 15:29 (11 days old) First-Bad-Commit: http://git.kernel.org/linus/be93112accb42c5586a459683d71975cc70673ca
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27152 Subject : VGA output broken at cold boot Submitter : Takashi Iwai tiwai@suse.de Date : 2011-01-20 13:26 (14 days old)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27132 Subject : flush-btrfs gets into an infinite loop Submitter : Artem Anisimov aanisimov@inbox.ru Date : 2011-01-20 11:51 (14 days old)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26942 Subject : radeon: screen distortion on resume Submitter : Brett Witherspoon spoonb@exherbo.org Date : 2011-01-17 13:23 (17 days old)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26932 Subject : [SNB mobile] Oops in DRM intel driver, esp. during S3/S4 stress test Submitter : Matthias Hopf mat@mshopf.de Date : 2011-01-17 11:45 (17 days old)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26842 Subject : [2.6.37 regression] threads with CPU affinity cannot be killed Submitter : tim blechmann tim@klingt.org Date : 2011-01-16 13:39 (18 days old)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26802 Subject : b43: Suspend failed Submitter : Patrick Matthäi patrick@linux-dev.org Date : 2011-01-15 18:56 (19 days old)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26582 Subject : NULL pointer dereference on pipe creation Submitter : Ferenc Wágner wferi@niif.hu Date : 2011-01-12 13:30 (22 days old)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26552 Subject : Screen flickering with 2.6.37 [ATI X1600] Submitter : Andrea Iob andrea_iob@yahoo.it Date : 2011-01-11 22:53 (23 days old)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26212 Subject : kernel NULL pointer dereference in pxa3xx_nand_probe Submitter : Sven Neumann s.neumann@raumfeld.com Date : 2011-01-05 11:43 (29 days old) Message-ID : 1294227801.3996.62.camel@sven References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=129422903703756&w=2
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26112 Subject : [LogFS] [2.6.37-rc8+] Kernel BUG at logfs/readwrite.c:297! Submitter : Prasad Joshi prasadjoshi124@gmail.com Date : 2011-01-02 21:22 (32 days old) Message-ID : AANLkTinpoM8FuG8UkF88xs_V37dz_wgE8t-s0JPzaS-w@mail.gmail.com References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=129400335910652&w=2
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26102 Subject : [2.6.37-rc8] BUG kmalloc-256: Poison overwritten. Submitter : Pawel Sikora pluto@agmk.net Date : 2010-12-30 15:08 (35 days old) Message-ID : 201012301608.40859.pluto@agmk.net References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=129372388925679&w=2
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25922 Subject : IdeaPad Y530 brightness keys not functioning Submitter : Tomasz tm.temp@gmx.com Date : 2010-12-30 12:48 (35 days old)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25832 Subject : kernel crashes upon resume if usb devices are removed when suspended Submitter : rocko rockorequin@hotmail.com Date : 2010-12-29 11:47 (36 days old)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25732 Subject : i915 turns picture green when display switched off-on Submitter : Tõnu Raitviir jussuf@linux.ee Date : 2010-12-27 22:14 (38 days old) First-Bad-Commit: http://git.kernel.org/linus/3c17fe4b8f40a112a85758a9ab2aebf772bdd647 Handled-By : Chris Wilson chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25432 Subject : Alpha fails to build with gcc 4.4 Submitter : Ben Hutchings ben@decadent.org.uk Date : 2010-12-22 01:55 (43 days old)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25402 Subject : kernel (2.6.37-8-generic_amd64) panic on boot (with message "map_single: bounce buffer is not DMA'ble) - possible regression !!! Submitter : carlos carlos.palma@ono.com Date : 2010-12-21 19:58 (44 days old)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25072 Subject : backlight level is not maintened during LID close/open Submitter : Lukas Hejtmanek xhejtman@fi.muni.cz Date : 2010-12-17 11:56 (48 days old)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24882 Subject : PM/Hibernate: Memory corruption patch introduces regression (2.6.36.2) Submitter : akwatts@ymail.com Date : 2010-12-14 04:00 (51 days old)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24822 Subject : Embedded DisplayPort is detected wrongly on HP ProBook 5320m Submitter : Takashi Iwai tiwai@suse.de Date : 2010-12-13 11:09 (52 days old) Handled-By : Chris Wilson chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24762 Subject : BUG at perf_ctx_adjust_freq (kernel/perf_event.c:1582) Submitter : Chris Wilson chris@chris-wilson.co.uk Date : 2010-12-10 12:00 (55 days old) Message-ID : c6d829$pqibha@fmsmga001.fm.intel.com References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=129198247531612&w=2
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24582 Subject : Kernel Oops at tty_buffer_request_room when using pppd program (2.6.37-rc4) Submitter : baoyb baoyb@avit.org.cn Date : 2010-12-08 13:55 (57 days old) Message-ID : EF6DDE218DB34702B1FA84D6CD7EA771@baoyb References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=129181763525738&w=2
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22942 Subject : [2.6.37-rc1, OOM] virtblk: OOM in do_virtblk_request() Submitter : Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com Date : 2010-11-05 1:30 (90 days old) Message-ID : 20101105013003.GE13830@dastard References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=128892062917641&w=2
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22912 Subject : spi_lm70llp module crash on unload (2.6.37-rc1) Submitter : Randy Dunlap randy.dunlap@oracle.com Date : 2010-11-05 0:16 (90 days old) Message-ID : 20101104171620.00d8c95d.randy.dunlap@oracle.com References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=128891627913647&w=2
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22882 Subject : (2.6.37-rc1) amd64-agp module crashed on second load Submitter : Randy Dunlap randy.dunlap@oracle.com Date : 2010-11-05 0:13 (90 days old) Message-ID : 20101104171333.fea1f498.randy.dunlap@oracle.com References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=128891605213447&w=2
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22642 Subject : 2.6.37-rc1: Disk takes 10 seconds to resume - MacBook2,1 Submitter : Tobias devnull@plzk.org Date : 2010-11-10 19:33 (85 days old)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22542 Subject : [2.6.37-rc1] drm:i195 errors Submitter : Paul Rolland rol@witbe.net Date : 2010-11-02 14:58 (93 days old) Message-ID : 20101102155813.09cb2c6e@tux.DEF.witbe.net References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=128870991628970&w=2
Regressions with patches ------------------------
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27202 Subject : Remote control of saa7134-based tv card "ASUSTeK P7131 Hybrid" stopped working in 2.6.37 Submitter : acaizzo@gmail.com Date : 2011-01-20 17:23 (14 days old) First-Bad-Commit: http://git.kernel.org/linus/4651918a4afdd49bdea21d2f919b189ef17a6399 Patch : https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=44532
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26242 Subject : BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at (null) Submitter : Steffen Michalke StMichalke@web.de Date : 2011-01-06 20:59 (28 days old) Patch : http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg08051.html
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25822 Subject : [BUG] kernel BUG at mm/truncate.c:479! on 2.6.37-rc8 Submitter : Gurudas Pai gurudas.pai@oracle.com Date : 2010-12-29 6:58 (36 days old) Message-ID : 4D1AD935.1020504@oracle.com References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=129360511222037&w=2 Patch : https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/12/29/131
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25442 Subject : ixp4xx defines FREQ macro; conflicts with gspca/ov519 driver Submitter : Ben Hutchings ben@decadent.org.uk Date : 2010-12-22 02:02 (43 days old) Handled-By : Ben Hutchings ben@decadent.org.uk Patch : https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=41252
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23472 Subject : 2.6.37-rc2 vs. 2.6.36 laptop backlight changes? Submitter : Patrick Schaaf netdev@bof.de Date : 2010-11-17 13:41 (78 days old) Message-ID : 1290001262.5727.2.camel@lat1 References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=129000127920912&w=2 Handled-By : Indan Zupancic indan@nul.nu Patch : https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=43482
For details, please visit the bug entries and follow the links given in references.
As you can see, there is a Bugzilla entry for each of the listed regressions. There also is a Bugzilla entry used for tracking the regressions introduced between 2.6.36 and 2.6.37, unresolved as well as resolved, at:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21782
Please let the tracking team know if there are any Bugzilla entries that should be added to the list in there.
Thanks!
On Thu 3.Feb'11 at 1:03:41 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
If you know of any other unresolved post-2.6.36 regressions, please let us know either and we'll add them to the list. Also, please let us know if any of the entries below are invalid.
I'm sorry if I'm overlooking something, but as far as I can see the regression reported here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/24/457
is not in the list (update on that report: reverting that commit on top of 2.6.37 fixes the issue).
After some time, I also ended up finding an earlier report in the kernel bugzilla which I think is the same regression (it was bisected to the same commit):
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24982
but I do not see it in the list either, even though it's marked as a regression in the bugzilla.
The issue was also present in 2.6.38-rc2 last time I tested.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Carlos R. Mafra crmafra2@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu 3.Feb'11 at 1:03:41 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
If you know of any other unresolved post-2.6.36 regressions, please let us know either and we'll add them to the list. Also, please let us know if any of the entries below are invalid.
I'm sorry if I'm overlooking something, but as far as I can see the regression reported here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/24/457
is not in the list (update on that report: reverting that commit on top of 2.6.37 fixes the issue).
Ok, added Keith and Dave to the cc, since they are the signers of that commit.
After some time, I also ended up finding an earlier report in the kernel bugzilla which I think is the same regression (it was bisected to the same commit):
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24982
but I do not see it in the list either, even though it's marked as a regression in the bugzilla.
The issue was also present in 2.6.38-rc2 last time I tested.
Just to confirm, can you also check -rc3? I'm pretty sure nothing has changed, but there were a few drm patches after -rc2, so it's alsways good to double-check.
Keithp?
Linus
At Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:42:05 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Carlos R. Mafra crmafra2@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu 3.Feb'11 at 1:03:41 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
If you know of any other unresolved post-2.6.36 regressions, please let us know either and we'll add them to the list. Also, please let us know if any of the entries below are invalid.
I'm sorry if I'm overlooking something, but as far as I can see the regression reported here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/24/457
is not in the list (update on that report: reverting that commit on top of 2.6.37 fixes the issue).
Ok, added Keith and Dave to the cc, since they are the signers of that commit.
After some time, I also ended up finding an earlier report in the kernel bugzilla which I think is the same regression (it was bisected to the same commit):
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24982
but I do not see it in the list either, even though it's marked as a regression in the bugzilla.
The issue was also present in 2.6.38-rc2 last time I tested.
Just to confirm, can you also check -rc3? I'm pretty sure nothing has changed, but there were a few drm patches after -rc2, so it's alsways good to double-check.
The problem I reported in the bugzilla above is still present in 2.6.38-rc3. I'm pretty sure that's the same issue as Carlos' case.
thanks,
Takashi
On Thursday, February 03, 2011, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:42:05 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Carlos R. Mafra crmafra2@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu 3.Feb'11 at 1:03:41 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
If you know of any other unresolved post-2.6.36 regressions, please let us know either and we'll add them to the list. Also, please let us know if any of the entries below are invalid.
I'm sorry if I'm overlooking something, but as far as I can see the regression reported here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/24/457
is not in the list (update on that report: reverting that commit on top of 2.6.37 fixes the issue).
Ok, added Keith and Dave to the cc, since they are the signers of that commit.
After some time, I also ended up finding an earlier report in the kernel bugzilla which I think is the same regression (it was bisected to the same commit):
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24982
but I do not see it in the list either, even though it's marked as a regression in the bugzilla.
The issue was also present in 2.6.38-rc2 last time I tested.
Just to confirm, can you also check -rc3? I'm pretty sure nothing has changed, but there were a few drm patches after -rc2, so it's alsways good to double-check.
The problem I reported in the bugzilla above is still present in 2.6.38-rc3. I'm pretty sure that's the same issue as Carlos' case.
I added https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24982 to the list of post-2.6.36 regressions for further tracking.
Thanks, Rafael
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki rjw@sisk.pl wrote:
On Thursday, February 03, 2011, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:42:05 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Carlos R. Mafra crmafra2@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu 3.Feb'11 at 1:03:41 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Just to confirm, can you also check -rc3? I'm pretty sure nothing has changed, but there were a few drm patches after -rc2, so it's alsways good to double-check.
The problem I reported in the bugzilla above is still present in 2.6.38-rc3. I'm pretty sure that's the same issue as Carlos' case.
I added https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24982 to the list of post-2.6.36 regressions for further tracking.
I also tested on 2.6.38-rc3+ now and the issue is not solved, just like Takashi expected.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Carlos Mafra crmafra2@gmail.com wrote:
I added https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24982 to the list of post-2.6.36 regressions for further tracking.
I also tested on 2.6.38-rc3+ now and the issue is not solved, just like Takashi expected.
Hmm. That commit (bf9dc102e284) still reverts cleanly.
Keith, Dave, should we just revert it? It's definitely a regression, and we do _not_ allow "fixes" to one thing that just causes a regression to another.
Quite frankly, I think it's totally wrong to just blindly set DPMS status to ON like that. It's as wrong as it was to leave it off, and the regressions reported are basically mirror images of the exact same bug that that commit tried to fix.
IOW, the commit message says:
When setting a new crtc configuration, force the DPMS state of all connectors to ON. Otherwise, they'll be left at OFF and a future mode set that disables the specified connector will not turn the connector off.
but setting it to ON doesn't actually _fix_ anything, because you just get the exact same issue in reverse, ie you just get
.. and a future mode set that ENables the specified connector will not turn the connector ON.
instead. Which is exactly what Carlos and Takashi are reporting.
Maybe the right thing to do is to set it to 'unknown', something like this.
TOTALLY UNTESTED!
Linus
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Maybe the right thing to do is to set it to 'unknown', something like this.
TOTALLY UNTESTED!
Doing some grepping and "git blame", I found this: commit 032d2a0d068 ("drm/i915: Prevent double dpms on") which took a very similar approach, except it just uses "-1" directly instead of introducing that DRM_MODE_DPMS_UNKNOWN concept.
So I suspect that my patch is going in the right direction, and judging by the comments in that commit, we probably should do this correctly at the dri level rather than have drivers see those stupid "let's set dpms to the state that it was already in". But that very much does require that kind of "UNKNOWN" state option.
So maybe we can get that patch tested (and acked if it works)? Carlos, Takashi?
Linus
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Carlos Mafra crmafra2@gmail.com wrote:
I added https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24982 to the list of post-2.6.36 regressions for further tracking.
I also tested on 2.6.38-rc3+ now and the issue is not solved, just like Takashi expected.
Hmm. That commit (bf9dc102e284) still reverts cleanly.
Keith, Dave, should we just revert it? It's definitely a regression, and we do _not_ allow "fixes" to one thing that just causes a regression to another.
Quite frankly, I think it's totally wrong to just blindly set DPMS status to ON like that. It's as wrong as it was to leave it off, and the regressions reported are basically mirror images of the exact same bug that that commit tried to fix.
IOW, the commit message says:
When setting a new crtc configuration, force the DPMS state of all connectors to ON. Otherwise, they'll be left at OFF and a future mode set that disables the specified connector will not turn the connector off.
but setting it to ON doesn't actually _fix_ anything, because you just get the exact same issue in reverse, ie you just get
.. and a future mode set that ENables the specified connector will not turn the connector ON.
If we are setting a mode on a connector it automatically will end up in a DPMS on state, so this seemed correct from what I can see.
A future mode set shouldn't ever not turn the connector on, since modesetting is an implicit DPMS,
It sounds like something more subtle than that, though I'm happy to revert this for now, and let Keith think about it a bit more.
Dave.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Dave Airlie airlied@gmail.com wrote:
If we are setting a mode on a connector it automatically will end up in a DPMS on state, so this seemed correct from what I can see.
The more I look at that function, the more I disagree with you and with that patch.
The code is just crazy.
First off, it isn't even necessarily setting a mode to begin with, because as far as I can tell. If the mode doesn't change, neither mode_changed nor fb_changed will be true, afaik. There seems to be a fair amount of code there explicitly to avoid changing modes if not necessary.
But even _if_ we are setting a mode, if I read the code correctly, the mode may be set to NULL - which seems to mean "turn it off". In which case it looks to me that drm_helper_disable_unused_functions() will actually do a
(*crtc_funcs->dpms)(crtc, DRM_MODE_DPMS_OFF);
call on the crtc in question. So then blindly just saying "it's mode DRM_MODE_DPMS_ON" afterwards looks rather bogus to me.
_Maybe_ it would work if it was done before that whole "disable_unused" logic. Or maybe it should just be done in drm_crtc_helper_set_mode(), which is what actually sets the mode (but there's the 'fb_changed' case too)
A future mode set shouldn't ever not turn the connector on, since modesetting is an implicit DPMS,
It sounds like something more subtle than that, though I'm happy to revert this for now, and let Keith think about it a bit more.
So I haven't heard anything from Keith. Keith? Just revert it? Or do you have a patch for people to try?
Linus
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Dave Airlie airlied@gmail.com wrote:
If we are setting a mode on a connector it automatically will end up in a DPMS on state, so this seemed correct from what I can see.
The more I look at that function, the more I disagree with you and with that patch.
The code is just crazy.
Good point, I'm just trying to get -rc3 onto a machine where I can reproduce this now, unfortunately that looks like the machine with the 1.8" disk, so this could take a little while.
hopefully Keith will decloak and tell us more.
Dave.
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 16:30:56 -0800, Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Dave Airlie airlied@gmail.com wrote:
If we are setting a mode on a connector it automatically will end up in a DPMS on state, so this seemed correct from what I can see.
The more I look at that function, the more I disagree with you and with that patch.
The code is just crazy.
First off, it isn't even necessarily setting a mode to begin with, because as far as I can tell. If the mode doesn't change, neither mode_changed nor fb_changed will be true, afaik. There seems to be a fair amount of code there explicitly to avoid changing modes if not necessary.
But even _if_ we are setting a mode, if I read the code correctly, the mode may be set to NULL - which seems to mean "turn it off". In which case it looks to me that drm_helper_disable_unused_functions() will actually do a
(*crtc_funcs->dpms)(crtc, DRM_MODE_DPMS_OFF);
call on the crtc in question. So then blindly just saying "it's mode DRM_MODE_DPMS_ON" afterwards looks rather bogus to me.
_Maybe_ it would work if it was done before that whole "disable_unused" logic. Or maybe it should just be done in drm_crtc_helper_set_mode(), which is what actually sets the mode (but there's the 'fb_changed' case too)
A future mode set shouldn't ever not turn the connector on, since modesetting is an implicit DPMS,
It sounds like something more subtle than that, though I'm happy to revert this for now, and let Keith think about it a bit more.
So I haven't heard anything from Keith. Keith? Just revert it? Or do you have a patch for people to try?
The goal is to make it so that when you *do* set a mode, DPMS gets set to ON (as the monitor will actually be "on" at that point). Here's a patch which does the DPMS_ON precisely when setting a mode.
Dave thinks we should instead force dpms to match crtc->enabled, I'd rather have dpms get set when we know the hardware has been changed.
(note, this patch compiles, but is otherwise only lightly tested).
From 38507bb3a67441425e11085d17d727f3b230f927 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Keith Packard keithp@keithp.com Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 16:57:28 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] drm: Only set DPMS ON when actually configuring a mode
In drm_crtc_helper_set_config, instead of always forcing all outputs to DRM_MODE_DPMS_ON, only set them if the CRTC is actually getting a mode set, as any mode set will turn all outputs on.
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard keithp@keithp.com --- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc_helper.c | 12 ++++++------ 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc_helper.c index 952b3d4..17459ee 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc_helper.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc_helper.c @@ -665,6 +665,12 @@ int drm_crtc_helper_set_config(struct drm_mode_set *set) ret = -EINVAL; goto fail; } + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Setting connector DPMS state to on\n"); + for (i = 0; i < set->num_connectors; i++) { + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("\t[CONNECTOR:%d:%s] set DPMS on\n", set->connectors[i]->base.id, + drm_get_connector_name(set->connectors[i])); + set->connectors[i]->dpms = DRM_MODE_DPMS_ON; + } } drm_helper_disable_unused_functions(dev); } else if (fb_changed) { @@ -681,12 +687,6 @@ int drm_crtc_helper_set_config(struct drm_mode_set *set) goto fail; } } - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Setting connector DPMS state to on\n"); - for (i = 0; i < set->num_connectors; i++) { - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("\t[CONNECTOR:%d:%s] set DPMS on\n", set->connectors[i]->base.id, - drm_get_connector_name(set->connectors[i])); - set->connectors[i]->dpms = DRM_MODE_DPMS_ON; - }
kfree(save_connectors); kfree(save_encoders);
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Keith Packard keithp@keithp.com wrote:
The goal is to make it so that when you *do* set a mode, DPMS gets set to ON (as the monitor will actually be "on" at that point). Here's a patch which does the DPMS_ON precisely when setting a mode.
Ok, patch looks sane, but it does leave me with the "what about the 'fb_changed' case?" question. Is that case basically guaranteed to not change any existing dpms state?
(note, this patch compiles, but is otherwise only lightly tested).
Carlos? Takashi? Ignore my crazy patch, try this one instead. Does it fix things for you?
Linus
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:11:14 -0800, Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Ok, patch looks sane, but it does leave me with the "what about the 'fb_changed' case?" question. Is that case basically guaranteed to not change any existing dpms state?
None of the existing drivers turn anything on or off in the mode_set_base code; the fix I intended was purely for the mode_set case, which always turns on all of the connected outputs. I just screwed up and stuck it in the wrong place.
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Keith Packard keithp@keithp.com wrote:
The goal is to make it so that when you *do* set a mode, DPMS gets set to ON (as the monitor will actually be "on" at that point). Here's a patch which does the DPMS_ON precisely when setting a mode.
Ok, patch looks sane, but it does leave me with the "what about the 'fb_changed' case?" question. Is that case basically guaranteed to not change any existing dpms state?
Yes its inconsistent behaviour but nothing in the fb_changed case will affect the DPMS state. I expect we should probably do that so all paths via that function turn DPMS on, and it'll be consistent, might be something for 39.
Dave.
On Thu 3.Feb'11 at 17:11:14 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Keith Packard keithp@keithp.com wrote:
The goal is to make it so that when you *do* set a mode, DPMS gets set to ON (as the monitor will actually be "on" at that point). Here's a patch which does the DPMS_ON precisely when setting a mode.
Ok, patch looks sane, but it does leave me with the "what about the 'fb_changed' case?" question. Is that case basically guaranteed to not change any existing dpms state?
(note, this patch compiles, but is otherwise only lightly tested).
Carlos? Takashi? Ignore my crazy patch, try this one instead. Does it fix things for you?
Yes! (tested on top of 2.6.38-rc3+).
Thanks to everyone involved!
At Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:11:14 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Keith Packard keithp@keithp.com wrote:
The goal is to make it so that when you *do* set a mode, DPMS gets set to ON (as the monitor will actually be "on" at that point). Here's a patch which does the DPMS_ON precisely when setting a mode.
Ok, patch looks sane, but it does leave me with the "what about the 'fb_changed' case?" question. Is that case basically guaranteed to not change any existing dpms state?
(note, this patch compiles, but is otherwise only lightly tested).
Carlos? Takashi? Ignore my crazy patch, try this one instead. Does it fix things for you?
Yes, the patch fixes the issue with xrandr off and on.
However, another issue I reported in that bugzilla still remains: namely, DPMS value returned via ioctl or obtained via sysfs is inconsistent with the actually applied value. The reason is that there are two places keeping the current DPMS values, in connector and in crtc device properties. A similar fix like my patch in the bugzilla would be still needed, I guess.
thanks,
Takashi
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Carlos Mafra -
Carlos R. Mafra
-
Dave Airlie -
Keith Packard -
Linus Torvalds -
Rafael J. Wysocki -
Takashi Iwai