On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:41:27 +0000 Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 December 2009 21:36:36 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wednesday 16 December 2009 21:30:05 Jesse Barnes wrote: > > > But you're sure powersave=0 was solid? Hmm... > > > > It's hard to be sure when it sometimes takes a day before a > > broken version crashes. I can keep running this kernel with and > > without powersave=0 some more and tell you if it stays reproducible. > > Now it has crashed with i915.powersave=0 plus your patch as well > (latest 2.6.32 git), indicating that there is something else wrong > with the original 652c393a33 patch. It does very little else that should affect things. You're sure reverting the commit makes things ok? Other potential problems: - clock gating (the call to intel_init_clock_gating) - the actual mark_busy stuff itself (calls to intel_mark_busy) - intel_idle_update (but powersave=0 should prevent that) If you want to keep testing you could try removing those calls... -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
