On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 09:16:33AM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:28:37 +0100
> Francesco Allertsen wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 03:25:33PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > Does this kernel have the problem patch included? Or is it reverted?
> >
> > That was without
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 09:16:33AM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:28:37 +0100
> Francesco Allertsen wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 03:25:33PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > Does this kernel have the problem patch included? Or is it reverted?
> >
> > That was without
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:28:37 +0100
> Francesco Allertsen wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 03:25:33PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
>> > Does this kernel have the problem patch included? ?Or is it reverted?
>>
>> That was without the patch re
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:28:37 +0100
> Francesco Allertsen wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 03:25:33PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
>> > Does this kernel have the problem patch included? Or is it reverted?
>>
>> That was without the patch rev
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:28:37 +0100
Francesco Allertsen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 03:25:33PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > Does this kernel have the problem patch included? Or is it reverted?
>
> That was without the patch reverted, now I've reverted it and this is
> the output:
>
> ---
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:28:37 +0100
Francesco Allertsen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 03:25:33PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > Does this kernel have the problem patch included? Or is it reverted?
>
> That was without the patch reverted, now I've reverted it and this is
> the output:
>
> ---
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 03:25:33PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> Does this kernel have the problem patch included? Or is it reverted?
That was without the patch reverted, now I've reverted it and this is
the output:
---
HD boost: yes
Boost freq: 3
HW control enabled: no
SW control enabled: yes
Ga
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:34:43AM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> Since intel_reg_read won't work, can you try this patch instead? Just
> patch it in, then cat /sys/kernel/debug/dri/0/i915_drpc_info
This is the output:
---
HD boost: yes
Boost freq: 3
HW control enabled: no
SW control enabled: yes
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 03:25:33PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> Does this kernel have the problem patch included? Or is it reverted?
That was without the patch reverted, now I've reverted it and this is
the output:
---
HD boost: yes
Boost freq: 3
HW control enabled: no
SW control enabled: yes
Ga
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:23:09 +0100
Francesco Allertsen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:34:43AM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > Since intel_reg_read won't work, can you try this patch instead? Just
> > patch it in, then cat /sys/kernel/debug/dri/0/i915_drpc_info
>
> This is the output:
>
> -
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:23:09 +0100
Francesco Allertsen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:34:43AM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > Since intel_reg_read won't work, can you try this patch instead? Just
> > patch it in, then cat /sys/kernel/debug/dri/0/i915_drpc_info
>
> This is the output:
>
> -
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:34:43AM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> Since intel_reg_read won't work, can you try this patch instead? Just
> patch it in, then cat /sys/kernel/debug/dri/0/i915_drpc_info
This is the output:
---
HD boost: yes
Boost freq: 3
HW control enabled: no
SW control enabled: yes
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 05:09:10PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> I was optimistic that we might spot the real issue... However, you appear
> to be not alone and so I've pushed a disabling patch onto -fixes:
>
> commit ac66808814036b4c33dd98091b2176ae6157f1a8
> Author: Chris Wilson
> Date: Wed Fe
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:10:26 +0100
Francesco Allertsen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 05:09:10PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > I was optimistic that we might spot the real issue... However, you appear
> > to be not alone and so I've pushed a disabling patch onto -fixes:
> >
> > commit ac66808
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:10:26 +0100
Francesco Allertsen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 05:09:10PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > I was optimistic that we might spot the real issue... However, you appear
> > to be not alone and so I've pushed a disabling patch onto -fixes:
> >
> > commit ac66808
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 05:09:10PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> I was optimistic that we might spot the real issue... However, you appear
> to be not alone and so I've pushed a disabling patch onto -fixes:
>
> commit ac66808814036b4c33dd98091b2176ae6157f1a8
> Author: Chris Wilson
> Date: Wed Fe
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 09:50:47 -0800, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:09:10 +
> Chris Wilson wrote:
> > I was optimistic that we might spot the real issue... However, you appear
> > to be not alone and so I've pushed a disabling patch onto -fixes:
> >
> > commit ac66808814036b4c33
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:52:38 +0100, Francesco Allertsen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 09:59:54AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Hmm, that was the only change I could spot between the two patches. Care
> > to disable that function and see what happens? [i.e. put a return before
> > we write anyth
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 09:59:54AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Hmm, that was the only change I could spot between the two patches. Care
> to disable that function and see what happens? [i.e. put a return before
> we write anything to the ring]
Ping?
I've tried the -rc4 (there are some drm update
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 09:50:47 -0800, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:09:10 +
> Chris Wilson wrote:
> > I was optimistic that we might spot the real issue... However, you appear
> > to be not alone and so I've pushed a disabling patch onto -fixes:
> >
> > commit ac66808814036b4c33
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 09:53:26 -0800
Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 09:50:47 -0800
> Jesse Barnes wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:09:10 +
> > Chris Wilson wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:52:38 +0100, Francesco Allertsen
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 09:5
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 09:53:26 -0800
Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 09:50:47 -0800
> Jesse Barnes wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:09:10 +
> > Chris Wilson wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:52:38 +0100, Francesco Allertsen > > gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 02, 2011
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 09:50:47 -0800
Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:09:10 +
> Chris Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:52:38 +0100, Francesco Allertsen
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 09:59:54AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > Hmm, that was the only change I
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 09:50:47 -0800
Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:09:10 +
> Chris Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:52:38 +0100, Francesco Allertsen > gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 09:59:54AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > Hmm, that was the only c
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:09:10 +
Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:52:38 +0100, Francesco Allertsen
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 09:59:54AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > Hmm, that was the only change I could spot between the two patches. Care
> > > to disable that functio
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:09:10 +
Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:52:38 +0100, Francesco Allertsen gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 09:59:54AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > Hmm, that was the only change I could spot between the two patches. Care
> > > to disable that
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:52:38 +0100, Francesco Allertsen
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 09:59:54AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Hmm, that was the only change I could spot between the two patches. Care
> > to disable that function and see what happens? [i.e. put a return before
> > we write anyt
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 09:59:54AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Hmm, that was the only change I could spot between the two patches. Care
> to disable that function and see what happens? [i.e. put a return before
> we write anything to the ring]
Ping?
I've tried the -rc4 (there are some drm update
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 09:59:54AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Hmm, that was the only change I could spot between the two patches. Care
> to disable that function and see what happens? [i.e. put a return before
> we write anything to the ring]
I've tried with the following patch
diff --git a/dri
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:57:37PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> So, if this is the issue, then simply commenting out the tweaking of
> RSTDBYCTL in ironlake_enable_rc6() should prevent the hang.
I've tried the following patch
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i9
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 10:56:57 +0100, Francesco Allertsen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:57:37PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > So, if this is the issue, then simply commenting out the tweaking of
> > RSTDBYCTL in ironlake_enable_rc6() should prevent the hang.
>
> I've tried the following patch
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 09:59:54AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Hmm, that was the only change I could spot between the two patches. Care
> to disable that function and see what happens? [i.e. put a return before
> we write anything to the ring]
I've tried with the following patch
diff --git a/dri
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 10:56:57 +0100, Francesco Allertsen
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:57:37PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > So, if this is the issue, then simply commenting out the tweaking of
> > RSTDBYCTL in ironlake_enable_rc6() should prevent the hang.
>
> I've tried the following patc
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:57:37PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> So, if this is the issue, then simply commenting out the tweaking of
> RSTDBYCTL in ironlake_enable_rc6() should prevent the hang.
I've tried the following patch
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i9
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 08:31:12 -0800, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> The bisect is interesting, I'd have expected a failure when we
> re-enabled rc6 on ILK or when we fixed up the ring buffer init.
Yes, that was my instinct as well.
Though that patch does do have one subtlety:
ironlake_enable_rc6():
+
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 01:16:01PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Useful for me. Just confirms that you have an equivalent machine to
> this Lenovo x201s, on which those patches were tested after receiving
> from Jesse. :|
Yes, I have a Lenovo x201s :-P.
> The dmesg would have been useful to know w
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 12:05:52PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> It would be useful to give us a few more details, such the drm.debug=0xe
> dmesg and the Xorg.log (from when it does starts!)
Sorry, I forgot to turn on the debug last time, this is the dmesg output
from when I start X.
Other (hope u
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 12:05:52PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> It would be useful to give us a few more details, such the drm.debug=0xe
> dmesg and the Xorg.log (from when it does starts!), and explain what you
> mean by complete freeze? Such as is the machine still accessible over the
> network,
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:00:41 +0100, Francesco Allertsen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 12:05:52PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > It would be useful to give us a few more details, such the drm.debug=0xe
> > dmesg and the Xorg.log (from when it does starts!)
>
> Sorry, I forgot to turn on the debu
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 13:29:45 +0100, Francesco Allertsen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 12:05:52PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > It would be useful to give us a few more details, such the drm.debug=0xe
> > dmesg and the Xorg.log (from when it does starts!), and explain what you
> > mean by comple
Hi Chris and all,
I have tried the latest git (-rc3) and I get a complete freeze when X
starts.
I've bisected it and the first bad commit is this:
commit d5bb081b027b520f9e59b4fb8faea83a136ec15e
Author: Jesse Barnes
Date: Wed Jan 5 12:01:26 2011 -0800
drm/i915: cleanup rc6 code
Clea
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 12:22:02 +0100, Francesco Allertsen wrote:
> Hi Chris and all,
>
> I have tried the latest git (-rc3) and I get a complete freeze when X
> starts.
It would be useful to give us a few more details, such the drm.debug=0xe
dmesg and the Xorg.log (from when it does starts!), and e
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 16:57:37 +
Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 08:31:12 -0800, Jesse Barnes
> wrote:
> > The bisect is interesting, I'd have expected a failure when we
> > re-enabled rc6 on ILK or when we fixed up the ring buffer init.
>
> Yes, that was my instinct as well.
>
> T
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 16:57:37 +
Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 08:31:12 -0800, Jesse Barnes
> wrote:
> > The bisect is interesting, I'd have expected a failure when we
> > re-enabled rc6 on ILK or when we fixed up the ring buffer init.
>
> Yes, that was my instinct as well.
>
> T
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 08:31:12 -0800, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> The bisect is interesting, I'd have expected a failure when we
> re-enabled rc6 on ILK or when we fixed up the ring buffer init.
Yes, that was my instinct as well.
Though that patch does do have one subtlety:
ironlake_enable_rc6():
+
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 12:05:52PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> It would be useful to give us a few more details, such the drm.debug=0xe
> dmesg and the Xorg.log (from when it does starts!)
Sorry, I forgot to turn on the debug last time, this is the dmesg output
from when I start X.
Other (hope u
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 12:05:52PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> It would be useful to give us a few more details, such the drm.debug=0xe
> dmesg and the Xorg.log (from when it does starts!), and explain what you
> mean by complete freeze? Such as is the machine still accessible over the
> network,
Hi Chris and all,
I have tried the latest git (-rc3) and I get a complete freeze when X
starts.
I've bisected it and the first bad commit is this:
commit d5bb081b027b520f9e59b4fb8faea83a136ec15e
Author: Jesse Barnes
Date: Wed Jan 5 12:01:26 2011 -0800
drm/i915: cleanup rc6 code
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:07:55 +0100
Francesco Allertsen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 01:16:01PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Useful for me. Just confirms that you have an equivalent machine to
> > this Lenovo x201s, on which those patches were tested after receiving
> > from Jesse. :|
>
> Ye
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:07:55 +0100
Francesco Allertsen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 01:16:01PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Useful for me. Just confirms that you have an equivalent machine to
> > this Lenovo x201s, on which those patches were tested after receiving
> > from Jesse. :|
>
> Ye
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:00:41 +0100, Francesco Allertsen
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 12:05:52PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > It would be useful to give us a few more details, such the drm.debug=0xe
> > dmesg and the Xorg.log (from when it does starts!)
>
> Sorry, I forgot to turn on the deb
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 13:29:45 +0100, Francesco Allertsen
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 12:05:52PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > It would be useful to give us a few more details, such the drm.debug=0xe
> > dmesg and the Xorg.log (from when it does starts!), and explain what you
> > mean by compl
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 12:22:02 +0100, Francesco Allertsen
wrote:
> Hi Chris and all,
>
> I have tried the latest git (-rc3) and I get a complete freeze when X
> starts.
It would be useful to give us a few more details, such the drm.debug=0xe
dmesg and the Xorg.log (from when it does starts!), and
53 matches
Mail list logo
