On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:14:10PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> I've just tracked down and fixed an bug which can lead to a hard-hang
> in the crtc restore code (which is used both in the lid handler when
> opening and on resume). If you could please test this patch (on top of
> drm-intel-night
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:14:10PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> I've just tracked down and fixed an bug which can lead to a hard-hang
> in the crtc restore code (which is used both in the lid handler when
> opening and on resume). If you could please test this patch (on top of
> drm-intel-night
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:17:42PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:22:50PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > It will be only consistent once we've restored all the crtcs. Since a
> > bunch of other callers also want to just restore a single crtc, add a
> > boolean to disable c
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:14:10PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> I've just tracked down and fixed an bug which can lead to a hard-hang
> in the crtc restore code (which is used both in the lid handler when
> opening and on resume). If you could please test this patch (on top of
> drm-intel-night
It will be only consistent once we've restored all the crtcs. Since a
bunch of other callers also want to just restore a single crtc, add a
boolean to disable checking only where it doesn't make sense.
Note that intel_modeset_setup_hw_state already has a call to
intel_modeset_check_state at the en
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:22:50PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> It will be only consistent once we've restored all the crtcs. Since a
> bunch of other callers also want to just restore a single crtc, add a
> boolean to disable checking only where it doesn't make sense.
>
> Note that intel_modeset
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Richard Cochran
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:03:25PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
>> That patch should crash at all, so this is not expected. Can you pls
>> check whether plain drm-intel-nightly is broken, too?
>
> I did try drm-intel-nightly just now (1dd8
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:03:25PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> That patch should crash at all, so this is not expected. Can you pls
> check whether plain drm-intel-nightly is broken, too?
I did try drm-intel-nightly just now (1dd83e3), and it also freezes
the machine. I first verified that the
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:14:10PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> I've just tracked down and fixed an bug which can lead to a hard-hang
> in the crtc restore code (which is used both in the lid handler when
> opening and on resume). If you could please test this patch (on top of
> drm-intel-night
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:03:25PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> That patch should crash at all, so this is not expected. Can you pls
> check whether plain drm-intel-nightly is broken, too?
I did try drm-intel-nightly just now (1dd83e3), and it also freezes
the machine. I first verified that the
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:17:42PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:22:50PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > It will be only consistent once we've restored all the crtcs. Since a
> > bunch of other callers also want to just restore a single crtc, add a
> > boolean to disable c
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:22:50PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> It will be only consistent once we've restored all the crtcs. Since a
> bunch of other callers also want to just restore a single crtc, add a
> boolean to disable checking only where it doesn't make sense.
>
> Note that intel_modeset
It will be only consistent once we've restored all the crtcs. Since a
bunch of other callers also want to just restore a single crtc, add a
boolean to disable checking only where it doesn't make sense.
Note that intel_modeset_setup_hw_state already has a call to
intel_modeset_check_state at the en
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Richard Cochran
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:03:25PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
>> That patch should crash at all, so this is not expected. Can you pls
>> check whether plain drm-intel-nightly is broken, too?
>
> I did try drm-intel-nightly just now (1dd8
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Tomas Melin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Daniel Vetter
> wrote:
>> v2: Try harder not to create a big patch (Chris).
>>
> Tested the patch applied to 3.9-rc6. Atleast on my machine that
> helped, although once I managed to get the error (but not warn
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Tomas Melin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> v2: Try harder not to create a big patch (Chris).
>>
> Tested the patch applied to 3.9-rc6. Atleast on my machine that
> helped, although once I managed to get the error (but not warning
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> v2: Try harder not to create a big patch (Chris).
>
Tested the patch applied to 3.9-rc6. Atleast on my machine that
helped, although once I managed to get the error (but not warning and
call trace as before):
[drm:i9xx_crtc_mode_set] *ERROR*
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 02:07:24PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> It's written against drm-intel-next-queued at
>
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~danvet/drm-intel
>
> I've thought that it should apply pretty cleanly against older kernels,
> too. Apparently it conflicts a bit in intel_modeset_set
It will be only consistent once we've restored all the crtcs. Since a
bunch of other callers also want to just restore a single crtc, add a
boolean to disable checking only where it doesn't make sense.
Note that intel_modeset_setup_hw_state already has a call to
intel_modeset_check_state at the en
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Richard Cochran
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 02:07:24PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>
>> It's written against drm-intel-next-queued at
>>
>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~danvet/drm-intel
>>
>> I've thought that it should apply pretty cleanly against older kern
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Daniel Vetter
wrote:
> v2: Try harder not to create a big patch (Chris).
>
Tested the patch applied to 3.9-rc6. Atleast on my machine that
helped, although once I managed to get the error (but not warning and
call trace as before):
[drm:i9xx_crtc_mode_set] *ERROR*
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 02:07:24PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> It's written against drm-intel-next-queued at
>
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~danvet/drm-intel
>
> I've thought that it should apply pretty cleanly against older kernels,
> too. Apparently it conflicts a bit in intel_modeset_set
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 01:59:02PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 09:51:30PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > It will be only consistent once we've restored all the crtcs. Since a
> > bunch of other callers also want to just restore a single crtc, add a
> > boolean to disabl
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 09:51:30PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> It will be only consistent once we've restored all the crtcs. Since a
> bunch of other callers also want to just restore a single crtc, add a
> boolean to disable checking only where it doesn't make sense.
>
> Note that intel_modeset
It will be only consistent once we've restored all the crtcs. Since a
bunch of other callers also want to just restore a single crtc, add a
boolean to disable checking only where it doesn't make sense.
Note that intel_modeset_setup_hw_state already has a call to
intel_modeset_check_state at the en
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Richard Cochran
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 02:07:24PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>
>> It's written against drm-intel-next-queued at
>>
>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~danvet/drm-intel
>>
>> I've thought that it should apply pretty cleanly against older kern
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 09:51:30PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> It will be only consistent once we've restored all the crtcs. Since a
> bunch of other callers also want to just restore a single crtc, add a
> boolean to disable checking only where it doesn't make sense.
>
> Note that intel_modeset
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 01:59:02PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 09:51:30PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > It will be only consistent once we've restored all the crtcs. Since a
> > bunch of other callers also want to just restore a single crtc, add a
> > boolean to disabl
It will be only consistent once we've restored all the crtcs. Since a
bunch of other callers also want to just restore a single crtc, add a
boolean to disable checking only where it doesn't make sense.
Note that intel_modeset_setup_hw_state already has a call to
intel_modeset_check_state at the en
It will be only consistent once we've restored all the crtcs. Since a
bunch of other callers also want to just restore a single crtc, add a
boolean to disable checking only where it doesn't make sense.
Note that intel_modeset_setup_hw_state already has a call to
intel_modeset_check_state at the en
30 matches
Mail list logo
