At Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:11:14 -0800,
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Keith Packard 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_O
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Keith Packard 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 precis
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Dave Airlie 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 mo
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Carlos Mafra 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 no
On Thu 3.Feb'11 at 17:11:14 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Keith Packard 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
At Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:11:14 -0800,
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Keith Packard 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_O
On Thu 3.Feb'11 at 17:11:14 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Keith Packard 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
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki 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
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Thu ?3.Feb'11 at ?1:03:41 +0100, Rafael J.
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
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu 3.Feb'11 at 1:03:41 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >>
> > >> If you know of any other unresolved
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Keith Packard 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 precis
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:11:14 -0800, Linus Torvalds
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
m
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:11:14 -0800, Linus Torvalds 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
mo
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Keith Packard 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 le
At Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:42:05 -0800,
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Carlos R. Mafra 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'l
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Keith Packard 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 le
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 16:30:56 -0800, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Dave Airlie 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
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 16:30:56 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Dave Airlie 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,
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Dave Airlie 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 mo
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Dave Airlie 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 cra
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Dave Airlie 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 cra
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Carlos Mafra 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 no
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Linus Torvalds
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
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Linus Torvalds
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
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Carlos Mafra 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 (bf9
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Carlos Mafra 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 (bf9
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki 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 wrote:
>> > > On Thu 3.Feb'11 at 1:03:41 +0100, Rafael J. Wysoc
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,
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 wrote:
> > > On Thu 3.Feb'11 at 1:03:41 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >>
> > >> If you know of any other unresolved post
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,
At Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:42:05 -0800,
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Carlos R. Mafra 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'l
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Carlos R. Mafra 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 entri
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Carlos R. Mafra 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 entri
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 kno
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 kno
34 matches
Mail list logo
