On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:48:00 -0800, Scott James Remnant
wrote:
> This gives us a significant chunk of time back (>0.5s) - what would be
> the downside of carrying a revert to this patch?
It fails to light up some LVDS panels, causing machines to not be
usable.
That's generally what we've found
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:38:09 -0800, Scott James Remnant
> wrote:
>> > After a little bit of digging I found:
>> > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~ickle/linux-2.6/commit/?h=async&id=470d6985b508466308fc4c6aec945cdbf6de39b8
>> > -Chris
>> >
>> I'
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:38:16 +, Chris Wilson
wrote:
> Reverting de842eff4101 (drm/i915: Wait for LVDS panel power sequence)
> should get another 0.4s back if intel_lvds_enable() is still in the
> critical path. After that the focus looks to be upon speeding up
> modeset.
*not* doing modeset
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:38:09 -0800, Scott James Remnant
wrote:
> > After a little bit of digging I found:
> > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~ickle/linux-2.6/commit/?h=async&id=470d6985b508466308fc4c6aec945cdbf6de39b8
> > -Chris
> >
> I've tried this patch, but it doesn't really reduce the startup t
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:01:29 -0800, Jesse Barnes
> wrote:
> > We had some async code to take all of this out of the boot time
> > critical path at least... I thought Chris merged them long ago but I
> > guess they were dropped. Chris?
>
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:01:29 -0800, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> We had some async code to take all of this out of the boot time
> critical path at least... I thought Chris merged them long ago but I
> guess they were dropped. Chris?
It never made it upstream because it had a tendency to hang machine
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:34:38 -0800
Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Jesse Barnes
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:55:06 -0800
> > Scott James Remnant wrote:
> >
> >> I've been investigating Chrome OS boot time and noticed the anomaly
> >> where i915_init takes
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:55:06 -0800
> Scott James Remnant wrote:
>
>> I've been investigating Chrome OS boot time and noticed the anomaly
>> where i915_init takes up a considerable amount of kernel startup time,
>> one second in fact. I've at
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:55:06 -0800
Scott James Remnant wrote:
> I've been investigating Chrome OS boot time and noticed the anomaly
> where i915_init takes up a considerable amount of kernel startup time,
> one second in fact. I've attached a full dmesg with drm.debug=0xff for
> analysis at Danie
