On 7/7/26 04:20, CK Hu (胡俊光) wrote: > On Mon, 2026-07-06 at 12:16 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> On 6/22/26 15:23, Adam Thiede wrote: >> > On 6/22/26 06:22, Gary Bisson wrote: >> > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 04:06:28PM -0500, Adam Thiede wrote: >> > > > On 1/20/26 05:36, Gary Bisson wrote: >> > > > > Some bridges, such as the TI SN65DSI83, require the HS clock to be >> > > > > running in order to lock its PLL during its own pre-enable function. >> > > > > >> > > > > Without this change, the bridge gives the following error: >> > > > > sn65dsi83 14-002c: failed to lock PLL, ret=-110 >> > > > > sn65dsi83 14-002c: Unexpected link status 0x01 >> > > > > sn65dsi83 14-002c: reset the pipe >> > > > > [...] >> > > > >> > > > This commit was part of 7.1 and caused a problem for me. >> > > > I'm running postmarketOS (basically Alpine Linux) on a Lenovo C330 >> > > > chromebook with a Mediatek MT8173 processor. >> > > > The problem: when the display on my laptop powers off (via suspend or >> > > > idle, >> > > > like xset dpms off) the picture does not come back when the display >> > > > powers >> > > > back on (from resume). The display backlight comes on and brightness is >> > > > adjustable but there is no picture. The only fix is to reboot. >> > > > >> > > > Reverting this commit and applying it as a patch on top of 7.1 >> > > > addresses the >> > > > issue for me. >> > > > >> > > > You can view the config I'm using here: >> > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://gitlab.postmarketos.org/postmarketOS/pmaports/-/__;!!CTRNKA9wMg0ARbw!jrsPDtSEUdaINzLlq92Li8gmsEBkTOxZ6WUzNHjvIN6CyOJjHiHkNSOhIRPXFTLPlaYlxU2uvryVkwjUAN9bmax5$ >> > > > merge_requests/8819 >> > > > >> > > > Is there any sort of testing or other debugging info I can provide to >> > > > help >> > > > address this issue? >> > > >> > > Thanks for reporting the issue, could you share some logs? Is the driver >> > > saying anything during resume? Also, what type of panel is used on that >> > > chromebook? >> > >> > The curious thing is that there are no real logs in dmesg or /var/log/ >> > messages about this. This picture just fails to come back. If there are >> > some kernel params I can set to get deeper logging, that would help, but >> > I'm not aware of any. >> > >> > I think the panel is a "BOE NV116WHM-T00" - I used this command to get >> > info: cat /sys/class/drm/card0-eDP-1/edid | edid-decode >> > >> > Output: >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://termbin.com/8nbd__;!!CTRNKA9wMg0ARbw!jrsPDtSEUdaINzLlq92Li8gmsEBkTOxZ6WUzNHjvIN6CyOJjHiHkNSOhIRPXFTLPlaYlxU2uvryVkwjUAJooSyqL$ >> >> This looked stalled. If I'm mistaken here, please let me known; but if >> no solution is in sight, should we maybe just revert the change until a >> proper was found? > > It's welcome anyone to provide a revert patch, > but I would still wait for the fixup patch until 7.2-rc4. > If no fixup patch exist, then apply the revert patch. >From my understanding of things the position in the devel cycle doesn't matter much in a case like this. To quote Linus statements from https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/handling-regressions.html#on-how-quickly-regressions-should-be-fixed
""" >From 2026-01-22: But a user complaining should basically result in an immediate fix - possibly a "revert and rethink". With a later clarification on 2026-01-28: It's also worth noting that "immediate" obviously doesn't mean "right this *second* when the problem has been reported". But if it's a regression with a known commit that caused it, I think the rule of thumb should generally be "within a week", preferably before the next rc. """ Adam reported the problem about three weeks ago, so we are way past the "rule of thumb" timeframe Linus set. Ciao, Thorsten
