Re: [Intel-gfx] Major 2.6.38 / 2.6.39 / 3.0 regression ignored?

2011-07-22 Thread Kirill Smelkov
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 01:08:14AM +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 01:50:04PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > > You're right, of course -- UMS is a huge wart on the kernel driver at > > this point, keeping it working while also adding new functionality > > continues to cause c

Re: [Intel-gfx] Major 2.6.38 / 2.6.39 / 3.0 regression ignored?

2011-07-22 Thread Kirill Smelkov
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 01:50:04PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 00:23:36 +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote: > > > What kind of a workaround are you talking about? > > Just reverting the commit -- that makes your machine work, even if it's > wrong for other machines. Yes, I could

Re: [Intel-gfx] Major 2.6.38 / 2.6.39 / 3.0 regression ignored?

2011-07-22 Thread Keith Packard
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 00:23:36 +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote: > What kind of a workaround are you talking about? Just reverting the commit -- that makes your machine work, even if it's wrong for other machines. > Sorry, to me it all looked like "UMS is being ignored forever". You're right, of cour

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: load the LUT before pipe enable on ILK+

2011-07-22 Thread Keith Packard
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:54:22 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > Keith, please pull this one in for 3.1. Hardware will wedge if we try > to access the palette after pipe enable but before FDI or eDP training > completes, so we may as well just do it right before pipe enable. I've stuck this on drm-in

Re: [Intel-gfx] Major 2.6.38 / 2.6.39 / 3.0 regression ignored?

2011-07-22 Thread Kirill Smelkov
Keith, first of all thanks for your prompt reply. Then... On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:00:41AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:08:06 +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote: > > > And now after v3.0 is out, I've tested it again, and yes, like it was > > broken on v3.0-rc5, it is (now eve

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: load the LUT before pipe enable on ILK+

2011-07-22 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 23:32:33 +0200 Jesse Barnes wrote: > Per the specs and to address > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36888. > > Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c |8 ++-- > 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH] drm/i915/dp: Dither down to 6bpc if it makes the mode fit

2011-07-22 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 11:08:51 -0400 Adam Jackson wrote: > Some active adaptors (VGA usually) only have two lanes at 2.7GHz. > That's a maximum pixel clock of 144MHz at 8bpc, but 192MHz at 6bpc. > > Signed-off-by: Adam Jackson > --- > > Patch is against drm-intel-next. Not even compile-tested y

Re: [Intel-gfx] Major 2.6.38 / 2.6.39 / 3.0 regression ignored?

2011-07-22 Thread Keith Packard
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:08:06 +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote: > And now after v3.0 is out, I've tested it again, and yes, like it was > broken on v3.0-rc5, it is (now even more) broken on v3.0 -- after first > bad io access the system freezes completely: I looked at this when I first saw it (a coupl

Re: [Intel-gfx] sandy bridge gpu crash on z68 chipset (astock z68 pro3) with gen6 power saving code

2011-07-22 Thread Jools Wills
On 06/07/11 22:24, b...@bwidawsk.net wrote: > You can come to #intel-gfx IRC channel and chat about it. We would like > to fix these powersaving issues and have been unable to reproduce most > of them locally. missed this message before. Sorry, and thanks for the offer. The problem now seems to

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/4] drm: add plane support

2011-07-22 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:52:52 -0500 Rob Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Jesse Barnes > wrote: > >  /** > > + * drm_plane_funcs - driver plane control functions > > + * @update_plane: update the plane configuration > > + */ > > +struct drm_plane_funcs { > > +       int (*update_pl

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Make driver backwards compatible for server 1.6.x.

2011-07-22 Thread Matthias Hopf
--- src/intel_module.c |7 +++ 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/intel_module.c b/src/intel_module.c index cd9c1a3..1e02cca 100644 --- a/src/intel_module.c +++ b/src/intel_module.c @@ -39,6 +39,9 @@ #include "sna/sna_module.h" #include +#if XORG_VERSIO

Re: [Intel-gfx] Major 2.6.38 / 2.6.39 / 3.0 regression ignored?

2011-07-22 Thread Kirill Smelkov
[ Cc'ing Florian Mickler and Keith Packard ] On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 09:07:47PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Kirill Smelkov wrote: > > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 05:19:20PM +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote: > >> Hello Chris, everyone, > >> > >> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 04

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Fix array size calculation for intel_pci_probe().

2011-07-22 Thread Matthias Hopf
Frankly said, I do not understand why the driver works for others at all. Array size calculation resulted in 0 due to the sizeof(pointer). Is xf86ConfigPciEntity a NOP in newer Xservers? That would explain it, as we're testing the driver with the Xserver on SLE11 (which is pretty old). Matthias

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Fix array size calculation for intel_pci_probe().

2011-07-22 Thread Matthias Hopf
From: Stefan Dirsch --- src/intel_module.c |4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/intel_module.c b/src/intel_module.c index 499814e..cd9c1a3 100644 --- a/src/intel_module.c +++ b/src/intel_module.c @@ -298,7 +298,7 @@ static Bool intel_pci_probe(DriverPtr