On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 06:34:57PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:46:55 +0100, Jan Niehusmann <j...@gondor.com> wrote: > > With that patch applied, I still observed the described behaviour. > > Additionally, some java application had display update problems. (But > > java generally has some problems because I'm using a non-reparenting > > window manager, 'awesome', which java doesn't like). > > > > What do you think, would it be worthwhile to try a more recent version > > of xf86-video-intel? > > Ok, that's more worrying. That bug certainly matched what you describe, > and I don't offhand know of another commit since 2.13 that is relevant. It > would be good to double-check first though.
I bisected the display update issues to start between 0b0b053a and c64f7ba5. fe669bf8 doesn't work at all (black screen after X startup), and I didn't try 1b6064d7 yet: bad: c64f7ba agp/intel: Remove confusion of stolen entries not stolen memory not tried: 1b6064d agp/intel: Remove the artificial cap on stolen size crashes: fe669bf drm/i915: Compute physical addresses from base of stolen memory good: 0b0b053 drm/i915/panel: Restore saved value of BLC_PWM_CTL Another observation I made is that everything is fine while I am using a dual-screen setup. As dual-screen disables frame buffer compression, I tried to i915.powersave=0, and indeed, with this parameter I was unable to reproduce the issues, as well. Is there anything else I could try? Unfortunately, because of conflicting changes, it's not easily possible to just revert these commits from 2.6.38. Regards, Jan _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
