Drop 0fc6fea41c71 ("drm/i915: Disable DC states for all commits") from the 6.0.y series?
Hi Greg! Months ago you picked up mainline commit a2b6e99d8a6 ("drm/i915: Disable DC states for all commits") for the 6.1.23 release as commit 0fc6fea41c71. It causes issues vor a few people (at least three, two of which are CCed) -- apparently because it depends on some change that wasn't picked up for 6.1.y. This is known for a while now, but nobody has yet found which change that is (Al found something that worked for him, but that didn't work for others). For the whole story skim this ticket:
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/8419
I wonder if it might be better if you revert that commit for 6.0.y; I asked already in the ticket if this is likely to cause regressions for users of 6.0.y, but got no answer from the i915 devs (or did I miss something?). :-/
Ciao, Thorsten
On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 12:52:03PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Hi Greg! Months ago you picked up mainline commit a2b6e99d8a6 ("drm/i915: Disable DC states for all commits") for the 6.1.23 release as commit 0fc6fea41c71. It causes issues vor a few people (at least three, two of which are CCed) -- apparently because it depends on some change that wasn't picked up for 6.1.y. This is known for a while now, but nobody has yet found which change that is (Al found something that worked for him, but that didn't work for others). For the whole story skim this ticket:
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/8419
I wonder if it might be better if you revert that commit for 6.0.y; I asked already in the ticket if this is likely to cause regressions for users of 6.0.y, but got no answer from the i915 devs (or did I miss something?). :-/
Now reverted (note, 6.0.y is long dead, I reverted this for 6.1.y)
thanks,
greg "drowning in kernel release numbers" k-h
On 09.08.23 11:15, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 12:52:03PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Hi Greg! Months ago you picked up mainline commit a2b6e99d8a6 ("drm/i915: Disable DC states for all commits") for the 6.1.23 release as commit 0fc6fea41c71. It causes issues vor a few people (at least three, two of which are CCed) -- apparently because it depends on some change that wasn't picked up for 6.1.y.
Fun fact: here I had an off-by-one error I noticed and fixed, but...
This is known for a while now, but nobody has yet found which change that is (Al found something that worked for him, but that didn't work for others). For the whole story skim this ticket:
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/8419
I wonder if it might be better if you revert that commit for 6.0.y; I asked already in the ticket if this is likely to cause regressions for users of 6.0.y,
...here I did not. :-/ Sorry.
but got no answer from the i915 devs (or did I miss something?). :-/
Now reverted (note, 6.0.y is long dead, I reverted this for 6.1.y)
Thx, but FWIW, seems my timing was bad. I had waited weeks before escalating this to you (which looking back now is something I maybe should have done earlier -- but first it looked like it was just one person/machine affected by this problem). But it seems soon after I brought this to your attention a solution came up, as a fix was posted and confirmed working by one of the reporters -- and the developer wants to post a backport for stable. For details see https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/8419#note_2035731
Not sure what's the right thing to do at this point for 6.1.y -- dropping the revert maybe before you do the release? You will know best anyway.
greg "drowning in kernel release numbers" k-h
Glad I'm not the only one. ;) But I guess it's worse for you...
Ciao, Thorsten
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 01:31:00PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 09.08.23 11:15, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 12:52:03PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Hi Greg! Months ago you picked up mainline commit a2b6e99d8a6 ("drm/i915: Disable DC states for all commits") for the 6.1.23 release as commit 0fc6fea41c71. It causes issues vor a few people (at least three, two of which are CCed) -- apparently because it depends on some change that wasn't picked up for 6.1.y.
Fun fact: here I had an off-by-one error I noticed and fixed, but...
This is known for a while now, but nobody has yet found which change that is (Al found something that worked for him, but that didn't work for others). For the whole story skim this ticket:
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/8419
I wonder if it might be better if you revert that commit for 6.0.y; I asked already in the ticket if this is likely to cause regressions for users of 6.0.y,
...here I did not. :-/ Sorry.
but got no answer from the i915 devs (or did I miss something?). :-/
Now reverted (note, 6.0.y is long dead, I reverted this for 6.1.y)
Thx, but FWIW, seems my timing was bad. I had waited weeks before escalating this to you (which looking back now is something I maybe should have done earlier -- but first it looked like it was just one person/machine affected by this problem). But it seems soon after I brought this to your attention a solution came up, as a fix was posted and confirmed working by one of the reporters -- and the developer wants to post a backport for stable. For details see https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/8419#note_2035731
Not sure what's the right thing to do at this point for 6.1.y -- dropping the revert maybe before you do the release? You will know best anyway.
Let me keep the revert, that will fix the issue now. If upstream wants to solve this in a different/better way, we can add both patches at once to prevent any systems from being broken.
thanks,
greg k-h
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Greg KH -
Thorsten Leemhuis