On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:00:45 +1000 Dave Airlie <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Jim Gettys <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 03/07/2011 07:00 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> > >> Dave, hopefully this completes the regression fixes for .38. There is > >> still some doubt over eDP, with 011b9910bdaf failing for Jim Gettys but > >> seeming required for other (currently working in .37) machines. And > >> despite Linus's intervention, backlight controls are still broken for some > >> users. > > > > FWIW: > > > > The failure is not so common for me as to claim the change should not go in; > > and my work around is to suspend/resume the system again. > > The thing with this patch is the only think I can think it could do > different on your system is timing related. > > I'm a bit worried that I haven't seen much attempt at debugging this > from the Intel folks, > since its an 80 line patch it really wouldn't harm if they could > suggest something. > > It might be interetsing to print out the is_pch_port to make sure it > never changes, > and also to see if bypassing the whole new code section added in to > turn off the CPU FDI and PCH FDI > helps at all. I did check out the reg dumps, and the only theory I have is that we're re-training DP at resume and coming up with a different vswing and/or pre-emphasis, which could cause trouble. The patch should only affect things in a timing sense though like you say. I'll try to find time this week to come up with a patch to allow suspend/resume to use fast link training, and see if that makes things better. I don't think this is a regression relative to 2.6.37 though? If not, we probably shouldn't revert, since the patch referenced fixes so many other machines... Jesse _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
