On Saturday, July 06, 2013 04:16:36 PM Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
Hi,
I've just started to play with a new Acer Aspire S5 test box and noticed
that
garbage is displayed after resume from suspend to RAM with the 3.10 kernel
On Saturday, July 06, 2013 03:59:49 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi,
I've just started to play with a new Acer Aspire S5 test box and noticed that
garbage is displayed after resume from suspend to RAM with the 3.10 kernel
(under KDE 4.10.3 on openSUSE 12.3). The display corruption goes away
On Friday, July 05, 2013 02:20:14 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, June 09, 2013 07:01:39 PM Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Windows 8 leaves backlight control up to individual graphics drivers rather
> > than making ACPI calls itself. There's plenty of evidence to suggest tha
that, so suggestions are welcome.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
)
+ acpi_video_backlight_unregister();
}
if (IS_GEN5(dev))
Well, this causes build failures to happen when the ACPI video driver is
modular and the graphics driver is not.
I'm not sure how to resolve that, so suggestions are welcome.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J
On Friday, July 05, 2013 02:20:14 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, June 09, 2013 07:01:39 PM Matthew Garrett wrote:
Windows 8 leaves backlight control up to individual graphics drivers rather
than making ACPI calls itself. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that
the Intel driver
On Friday, July 05, 2013 10:00:55 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, July 05, 2013 02:20:14 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, June 09, 2013 07:01:39 PM Matthew Garrett wrote:
Windows 8 leaves backlight control up to individual graphics drivers
rather
than making ACPI calls
On Friday, July 05, 2013 11:40:02 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, July 05, 2013 10:00:55 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, July 05, 2013 02:20:14 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, June 09, 2013 07:01:39 PM Matthew Garrett wrote:
Windows 8 leaves backlight control up
On Monday, June 24, 2013 04:20:06 PM Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 06/22/2013 03:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 22, 2013 02:11:14 PM Shuah Khan wrote:
> >> Add a new interface get_pm_transition() to return pm_transition state.
> >> This interface
On Monday, June 24, 2013 04:20:06 PM Shuah Khan wrote:
On 06/22/2013 03:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, June 22, 2013 02:11:14 PM Shuah Khan wrote:
Add a new interface get_pm_transition() to return pm_transition state.
This interface is intended to be used from dev_pm_ops class
,6 +63,9 @@ typedef struct pm_message {
> int event;
> } pm_message_t;
>
> +/* drivers/base/power/main.c */
> +extern pm_message_t get_pm_transition(void);
> +
> /**
> * struct dev_pm_ops - device PM callbacks
> *
>
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
callbacks
*
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
rying though.
>
> Aside at the end: If the gnome tool indeed has its own backlight code and
> doesn't just use that as a fallback if the xrandr backligh property isn't
> available, then that's just a serious bug in gnome and should be fixed
> asap. But imo that's not something we should try
isn't
available, then that's just a serious bug in gnome and should be fixed
asap. But imo that's not something we should try to (nor do I see any way
how to) work around in the kernel.
Agreed.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center
we'll decide what to merge.
I'm slightly concerned about unregistering ACPI backlight control for all
systems declaring win8 support, even though it may actually work for them.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
unregistering ACPI backlight control for all
systems declaring win8 support, even though it may actually work for them.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri
only concern corner cases and don't matter in practice.
For cpufreq and cpuidle:
Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki
> Arnd Bergmann (22):
> can: move CONFIG_HAVE_CAN_FLEXCAN out of CAN_DEV
> cpufreq: ARM_DT_BL_CPUFREQ needs ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY
> cpuidle: calxeda: select ARM_CPU_SUSPEN
in practice.
For cpufreq and cpuidle:
Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Arnd Bergmann (22):
can: move CONFIG_HAVE_CAN_FLEXCAN out of CAN_DEV
cpufreq: ARM_DT_BL_CPUFREQ needs ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY
cpuidle: calxeda: select ARM_CPU_SUSPEND
staging/drm: imx: add missing
a good idea. This would mean that any user that from
> some reasons don't want to use PM_RUNTIME, would not be able to use the
> driver
> anymore.
>
> Rafael, Kevin, do you have any opinion on this?
I agree.
Drivers should work for CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME unset too and static inline stubs for
all runtime PM helpers are available in that case.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
should work for CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME unset too and static inline stubs for
all runtime PM helpers are available in that case.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri
Sorry for the delayed response.
On Wednesday, September 12, 2012, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, September 12, 2012, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >>>
Sorry for the delayed response.
On Wednesday, September 12, 2012, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Dave Airlie airl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Wednesday, September 12, 2012, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Wed, Sep
On Wednesday, September 12, 2012, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Alan Stern
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, September 11, 2012, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >> >
On Tuesday, September 11, 2012, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tuesday, September 11, 2012, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > Hi Rafael,
> > >
> > > I've been investigating runtime PM support for s
Hi,
On Tuesday, September 11, 2012, Dave Airlie wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> I've been investigating runtime PM support for some use-cases on GPUs.
>
> In some laptops we have a secondary GPU (optimus) that can be powered
> up for certain 3D tasks and then turned off when finished with. Now I
> did
Hi,
On Tuesday, September 11, 2012, Dave Airlie wrote:
Hi Rafael,
I've been investigating runtime PM support for some use-cases on GPUs.
In some laptops we have a secondary GPU (optimus) that can be powered
up for certain 3D tasks and then turned off when finished with. Now I
did an
On Tuesday, September 11, 2012, Alan Stern wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi,
On Tuesday, September 11, 2012, Dave Airlie wrote:
Hi Rafael,
I've been investigating runtime PM support for some use-cases on GPUs.
In some laptops we have a secondary
On Wednesday, September 12, 2012, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi,
On Tuesday, September 11, 2012, Dave Airlie wrote:
Hi Rafael,
I've been investigating runtime PM
On Sunday, March 18, 2012, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Added Rafael to the Cc: Rafael, we're pondering over one or more of these
> recurrent threads about corruption after resume, seemingly related to i915.
Thanks for letting me know. :-)
I actually have a confirmation that the issue isn't present if
On Sunday, March 18, 2012, Hugh Dickins wrote:
Added Rafael to the Cc: Rafael, we're pondering over one or more of these
recurrent threads about corruption after resume, seemingly related to i915.
Thanks for letting me know. :-)
I actually have a confirmation that the issue isn't present if
This message contains a list of some post-3.1 regressions introduced before
3.2, 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-3.1 regressions, please let us know
either
This message contains a list of some regressions from 3.2,
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 regressions from 3.2, please let us
know either and we'll add them to
This message contains a list of some regressions from 3.2,
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 regressions from 3.2, please let us
know either and we'll add them to
This message contains a list of some post-3.1 regressions introduced before
3.2, 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-3.1 regressions, please let us know
either
This message contains a list of some post-3.1 regressions introduced before
3.2, 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-3.1 regressions, please let us know
either
Hi all,
It looks like many people have switched away from the kernel Bugzilla
after the kernel.org outage and they are using various means of reporting
(and tracking) kernel bugs. For this reason, it's becoming increasingly
difficult for us to track all of the possible sources of reports and we
Hi all,
It looks like many people have switched away from the kernel Bugzilla
after the kernel.org outage and they are using various means of reporting
(and tracking) kernel bugs. For this reason, it's becoming increasingly
difficult for us to track all of the possible sources of reports and we
This message contains a list of some post-3.1 regressions introduced before
3.2, 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-3.1 regressions, please let us know
either
On Friday, February 24, 2012, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Rafael J. Wysocki"
> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:51:20 +0100 (CET)
>
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42776
> > Subject : OF-related boot crash in 3.3.0-rc3-00188-g3
This message contains a list of some post-3.1 regressions introduced before
3.2, 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-3.1 regressions, please let us know
either
Hi all,
We definitely aren't 100% in business yet with the tracking of regressions,
but since the Bugzilla is operational again, we can collect reports at least.
I'd like to use this opportunity to thank Maciej Rutecki and Florian Mickler
for their hard work on the regression tracking and to
This message contains a list of some post-3.1 regressions introduced before
3.2, 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-3.1 regressions, please let us know
either
Hi all,
We definitely aren't 100% in business yet with the tracking of regressions,
but since the Bugzilla is operational again, we can collect reports at least.
I'd like to use this opportunity to thank Maciej Rutecki and Florian Mickler
for their hard work on the regression tracking and to
On Friday, February 24, 2012, David Miller wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:51:20 +0100 (CET)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42776
Subject : OF-related boot crash in 3.3.0-rc3-00188-g3ec1e88
Submitter : Meelis
reating a new system-wide, non-reentrant,
> freezable workqueue and using it for disk-events polling.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern
> CC: Tejun Heo
> CC:
Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki
Thanks,
Rafael
> ---
>
> I'm not sure who to send this patch to, since it is
,
freezable workqueue and using it for disk-events polling.
Signed-off-by: Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu
CC: Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org
CC: sta...@kernel.org
Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl
Thanks,
Rafael
---
I'm not sure who to send this patch to, since it is relevant
[I'm sorry if you receive this message twice, I seem to have problems with
sending it.]
This message contains a list of some regressions from 3.0 and 3.1
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
This message contains a list of some regressions from 3.0 and 3.1
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 regressions from 3.0 and 3.1, please let us
know either and
[I'm sorry if you receive this message twice, I seem to have problems with
sending it.]
This message contains a list of some regressions from 3.0 and 3.1
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
This message contains a list of some regressions from 3.0 and 3.1
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 regressions from 3.0 and 3.1, please let us
know either and
This message contains a list of some regressions from 3.0 and 3.1
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 regressions from 3.0 and 3.1, please let us
know either and
This message contains a list of some regressions from 3.0 and 3.1
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 regressions from 3.0 and 3.1, please let us
know either and
On Sunday, August 28, 2011, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 08:22:05PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41742
> > Subject: duplicate filename for intel_backlight with the i915
> driver
&
This message contains a list of some post-2.6.39 regressions introduced before
3.0, 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-2.6.39 regressions, please let us know
This message contains a list of some regressions from 3.0,
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 regressions from 3.0, please let us
know either and we'll add them to
This message contains a list of some regressions from 3.0,
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 regressions from 3.0, please let us
know either and we'll add them to
On Sunday, August 28, 2011, Dave Jones wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 08:22:05PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41742
Subject: duplicate filename for intel_backlight with the i915
driver
Submitter : François
This message contains a list of some post-2.6.39 regressions introduced before
3.0, 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-2.6.39 regressions, please let us know
On Monday, August 15, 2011, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 09:02:27PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > [NOTE:
> > We already have a bug entry for tracking regressions from 3.0:
> >
> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40982
> &g
On Monday, August 15, 2011, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 09:02:27PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[NOTE:
We already have a bug entry for tracking regressions from 3.0:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40982
but there are no reports linked
[NOTE:
We already have a bug entry for tracking regressions from 3.0:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40982
but there are no reports linked to it, mostly because Maciej is on vacation,
but also because the frequency of reporting regressions has been low
recently. So, if you're
[NOTE:
We already have a bug entry for tracking regressions from 3.0:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40982
but there are no reports linked to it, mostly because Maciej is on vacation,
but also because the frequency of reporting regressions has been low
recently. So, if you're
On Sunday, July 10, 2011, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 12:19 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38702
> > Subject : 3.0.0-rc4-git6 - INFO: possible circular locking
> > dep
This message contains a list of some post-2.6.38 regressions introduced before
2.6.39, 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-2.6.38 regressions, please let us
Submitter : Borislav Petkov
Date: 2011-06-19 13:30 (22 days old)
Message-ID : <20110619133049.GA18168 at liondog.tnic>
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel=130849028317365=2
Handled-By : Rafael J. Wysocki
Patch : https://patchwork.kernel.o
)
Message-ID : 20110619133049.ga18...@liondog.tnic
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=130849028317365w=2
Handled-By : Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl
Patch : https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/950852/
For details, please visit the bug entries and follow the links given
This message contains a list of some post-2.6.38 regressions introduced before
2.6.39, 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-2.6.38 regressions, please let us
On Sunday, July 10, 2011, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 12:19 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38702
Subject : 3.0.0-rc4-git6 - INFO: possible circular locking
dependency detected - (rdev-mtx
This message contains a list of some post-2.6.38 regressions introduced before
2.6.39, 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-2.6.38 regressions, please let us
This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.39,
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 regressions from 2.6.39, please let us
know either and we'll add
This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.39,
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 regressions from 2.6.39, please let us
know either and we'll add
This message contains a list of some post-2.6.38 regressions introduced before
2.6.39, 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-2.6.38 regressions, please let us
This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.39,
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 regressions from 2.6.39, please let us
know either and we'll add
This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.39,
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 regressions from 2.6.39, please let us
know either and we'll add
This message contains a list of some post-2.6.38 regressions introduced before
2.6.39, 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-2.6.38 regressions, please let us
On Friday, May 20, 2011, Ray Lee wrote:
> [ Adding Chris Wilson (author of the problematic patch) and Rafael Wysocki
> to the message ]
It is on the list of known regressions from 2.6.37, but we're not tracking
them any more now that 2.6.39 is out.
Thanks,
Rafael
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at
On Friday, May 20, 2011, Ray Lee wrote:
[ Adding Chris Wilson (author of the problematic patch) and Rafael Wysocki
to the message ]
It is on the list of known regressions from 2.6.37, but we're not tracking
them any more now that 2.6.39 is out.
Thanks,
Rafael
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:06
[NOTE:
This most likely is the last summary report of post-2.6.37 regressions
introduced during the 2.6.38 development cycle. Please let us know what
the current status of those bugs is, if possible, and thanks for all of
the reports, updates and fixes.]
This message contains a list of some
This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.38,
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 regressions from 2.6.38, please let us
know either and we'll add
This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.38,
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 regressions from 2.6.38, please let us
know either and we'll add
[NOTE:
This most likely is the last summary report of post-2.6.37 regressions
introduced during the 2.6.38 development cycle. Please let us know what
the current status of those bugs is, if possible, and thanks for all of
the reports, updates and fixes.]
This message contains a list of some
This message contains a list of some post-2.6.37 regressions introduced before
2.6.38, 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-2.6.37 regressions, please let us
[NOTE:
I have one request for whoever works on fixing the listed regressions. While
your work is highly appreciated anyway, if you have a patch fixing a listed
regression or you know of a commit fixing a listed regression, please drop
a notice into the corresponding Bugzilla entry. This will
[NOTE:
I have one request for whoever works on fixing the listed regressions. While
your work is highly appreciated anyway, if you have a patch fixing a listed
regression or you know of a commit fixing a listed regression, please drop
a notice into the corresponding Bugzilla entry. This will
This message contains a list of some post-2.6.37 regressions introduced before
2.6.38, 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-2.6.37 regressions, please let us
This message contains a list of some post-2.6.37 regressions introduced before
2.6.38, 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-2.6.37 regressions, please let us
This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.38,
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 regressions from 2.6.38, please let us
know either and we'll add
This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.38,
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 regressions from 2.6.38, please let us
know either and we'll add
This message contains a list of some post-2.6.37 regressions introduced before
2.6.38, 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-2.6.37 regressions, please let us
On Sunday, March 27, 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message contains a list of some regressions from 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 o
This message contains a list of some regressions from 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 regressions from 2.6.37, please let us
know either and we'll add
This message contains a list of some regressions from 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 regressions from 2.6.37, please let us
know either and we'll add
On Sunday, March 27, 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
This message contains a list of some regressions from 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
Submitter : Ortwin Gl?ck
Date: 2011-02-23 11:49 (12 days old)
Handled-By : Rafael J. Wysocki
Patch : https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/604371/
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27202
Subject : Remote control of saa7134-based tv
This message contains a list of some regressions from 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 regressions from 2.6.37, please let us
know either and we'll add
This message contains a list of some regressions from 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 regressions from 2.6.37, please let us
know either and we'll add
(12 days old)
Handled-By : Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl
Patch : https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/604371/
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27202
Subject : Remote control of saa7134-based tv card ASUSTeK P7131
Hybrid stopped working in 2.6.37
[NOTE: Can maintainers _please_ merge patches listed below, especially those
that
have been known for weeks?]
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
This message contains a list of some regressions from 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 regressions from 2.6.37, please let us
know either and we'll add
This message contains a list of some regressions from 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 regressions from 2.6.37, please let us
know either and we'll add
301 - 400 of 528 matches
Mail list logo
