Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #90176 > unrolled thread

Bug#1118349: dpm broken on Radeon HD 8570D

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Bug#1118349: dpm broken on Radeon HD 8570D Roman Savochenko <roman@oscada.org> - 2025-11-21 10:20 +0100
    Bug#1118349: dpm broken on Radeon HD 8570D Roman Savochenko <roman@oscada.org> - 2025-11-26 17:00 +0100

#90176 — Bug#1118349: dpm broken on Radeon HD 8570D

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi, Uwe Kleine-König

21.11.25 10:35, Uwe Kleine-König:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 06:45:48PM +0200, Roman Savochenko wrote:
>> 20.11.25 10:38, Uwe Kleine-König:
>>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 08:23:31PM +0200, Roman Savochenko wrote:
>>>> 19.11.25 19:05, Uwe Kleine-König:
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 06:19:07PM +0200, Roman Savochenko wrote:
>>>>>> 12.11.25 17:03, Christian König:
>>>>>>> On 11/12/25 15:28, Roman Savochenko wrote:
>>>>>>>> 12.11.25 13:14, Uwe Kleine-König:
>>>>>>>>>> On my hardware that doesn't work and there is no specific.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now just I set "radeon.dpm=1", I got immediately restart with disabling USB,
>>>>>>>>>> so I have needed to restart for successful download with "radeon.dpm=0".
>>>>>>>>> Can you try a different monitor?
>>>>>>>> I have only one, connected through DVI, and there is no problem on Linux Kernel 5.
>>>>>>> Kernel 5 what? E.g. which concrete version number? (output of uname -a).
>>>>>> user@debian:~$ cat /proc/version
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linux version 5.10.0-32-amd64 (debian-kernel@lists.debian.org) (gcc-10
>>>>>> (Debian 10.2.1-6) 10.2.1 20210110, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.35.2)
>>>>>> #1 SMP Debian 5.10.223-1 (2024-08-10)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can you try which Debian kernel was the last one working fine respective
>>>>>>>>> the first being broken in this regard? You can find all kernels on
>>>>>>>>> https://snapshot.debian.org/. Please ask if it's unclear how to do that.
>>>>>>>> I can try all kernels in Debian starting 7 and finishing 13, but I have traced that before and the problem reproduction started from Debian 9, terminated on Debian 11 and renewed on Debian 12.
>>>>> Not sure I follow. Does that mean that Debian 9, Debian 10, Debian 12
>>>>> and Debian 13 show the symptom and Debian 11 doesn't?
>>>> Yes, and in kernels that is 4, 6 show the symptom and 3, 5 don't.
>>> I think this statement isn't helpful unless you're saying that Linux
>>> 5.19 was good and 6.0 was bad. Kernel versions started with 5 between
>>> 2019-03-03 and 2022-07-31, not taking stable releases into account. And
>>> there are 294457 commits in that range
>>> (`git rev-list v5.0..v5.19 | wc -l`). So "kernel 5" and "kernel 6" is a
>>> bit too fuzzy to work with.
>> OK, and what do you want from me?
> Quoting an earlier mail in that thread:
>
> 	Can you try which Debian kernel was the last one working fine
> 	respective the first being broken in this regard? You can find
> 	all kernels on https://snapshot.debian.org/. Please ask if it's
> 	unclear how to do that.

I have told that as the kernel in Debian 11.

>> Must I say you the exact commit or what,
>> or you are waiting I must recompile all kernels with 294457 commits?
>>
>> I say you in what way the problem related through the stable kernels in
>> Debian releases and that is exactly assigned to the major versions of the
>> Linux kernel, even for broken v5.19 which can include backports from 6!
> Yeah, you keep talking about Linux 3, 4, 5 and 6. These categories cover
> several years of development each and thus are not helpful to locate the
> change that broke your setup. Unless it is really 5.19 that was good and
> 6.0 that is bad which limits the amount of changes from:

I keep talking that only for understanding the problem depth and not for 
fixing that in 4 kernels!

That is, there can be simpler to apply that workaround.

> . This is still a lot and we might ask you to do more tests to further
> limit the set of candidate commits that are broken on your end.

OK, ask.

>>> Can you please confirm that 5.19.x (e.g. a kernel package from
>>> https://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux/5.19.11-1/) works fine and
>>> 6.0.x (e.g.https://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux/6.0.12-1/)
>>> doesn't? (Or a similar statement with other consecutive mainline
>>> versions.)
>> 5.19.0 has this problem in view of hanging.
> You lost me here. What is "problem in view of hanging"? Are we talking
> about more than one problem? Or different variants of the same problem?

We talk about different variants, and the hanging I saw also on one 6 
kernel just after installing Debian 13 and that is why #1118349 I opened 
about the hanging but not rebooting in the initial report #879992.

>>> Note that even that might not be enough to spot the problem and you
>>> might have to get your hands dirty then and compile development kernels
>>> and test them.
>> Note, my hands in that "dirty" are 22 years already and I hoped I will not
>> get their at least on Linux kernel again — http://oscada.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Sub-projects/Automation_Linux_distributive
>> . :)
>>
>> And I have resolved the problem for myself by the option "radeon.dpm=0" in
>> all my Live Disks. If you want to tell that is my problem, throw it away and
>> reject the workaround!:)
> There might be a misconception about the roles involved here.
>
> In my eyes the situation is as follows: You have a problem.

I have resolved the problem for myself far ago.

> I (and possibly others) offer to help.

To help for other with same hardware, since I can fix that for myself if 
I need.

> For now your problem report isn't in a form that I can act upon. So it's in your interest to provide the
> information that I ask for. If you don't want to do that, that's fine,
> and I won't have sleepless nights about it. The likely outcome is that
> the problem isn't addressed.

Whether I don't provide you all information beyond "get my hand in the 
dirty"? :)

> Parts of the misunderstanding here might also be a language barrier. So
> maybe try to get some help in the kernel community that speaks your
> native tongue.

So, English isn't native one for you? :)

Regards, Roman

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#90275

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

26.11.25 12:01, Salvatore Bonaccorso:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 11:15:32AM +0200, Roman Savochenko wrote:
>> 26.11.25 10:06, Salvatore Bonaccorso:
>>> On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 07:40:33PM +0200, Roman Savochenko wrote:
>>>> Hi, Uwe Kleine-König
>>>>
>>>> 22.11.25 19:22, Uwe Kleine-König:
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 11:11:39AM +0200, Roman Savochenko wrote:
>>>>>> 21.11.25 10:35, Uwe Kleine-König:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 06:45:48PM +0200, Roman Savochenko wrote:
>>>>>>>> 20.11.25 10:38, Uwe Kleine-König:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 08:23:31PM +0200, Roman Savochenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 19.11.25 19:05, Uwe Kleine-König:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 06:19:07PM +0200, Roman Savochenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 12.11.25 17:03, Christian König:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/12/25 15:28, Roman Savochenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12.11.25 13:14, Uwe Kleine-König:
>>>>>>>> OK, and what do you want from me?
>>>>>>> Quoting an earlier mail in that thread:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 	Can you try which Debian kernel was the last one working fine
>>>>>>> 	respective the first being broken in this regard? You can find
>>>>>>> 	all kernels onhttps://snapshot.debian.org/. Please ask if it's
>>>>>>> 	unclear how to do that.
>>>>>> I have told that as the kernel in Debian 11.
>>>>> Is that the last working or the first broken?
>>>>>
>>>>> The last kernel in Debian 11 (i.e. buster) is 5.10.218-1. Or do you mean
>>>>> the last in buster-security which would be 5.10.244-1? Or do you mean
>>>>> the one that Debian 11.0 was released with, that would be 5.10.46-4 (I
>>>>> think)?
>>>>>
>>>>> The kernels before and after that are depending on what you meant above
>>>>> 5.10.216-1 or 5.10.237-1 or 5.10.46-3 and 5.10.221-1 or
>>>>> 5.13.9-1~exp1 or 5.10.46-5. Which one do you mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> The gist to take away here is: Don't specify kernel versions as "the one
>>>>> in Debian 11" or "kernel 5" but use the proper kernel (package) version.
>>>>> Everything else is too fuzzy for me to work with.
>>>> And what that about when I have said that precisely???
>>>>
>>>>> Kernel 5 what? E.g. which concrete version number? (output of uname -a).
>>>> user@debian:~$ cat /proc/version
>>>>
>>>> Linux version 5.10.0-32-amd64 (debian-kernel@lists.debian.org) (gcc-10
>>>> (Debian 10.2.1-6) 10.2.1 20210110, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.35.2)
>>>> #1 SMP Debian 5.10.223-1 (2024-08-10)
>>>>
>>>>>>> Parts of the misunderstanding here might also be a language barrier. So
>>>>>>> maybe try to get some help in the kernel community that speaks your
>>>>>>> native tongue.
>>>>>> So, English isn't native one for you? :)
>>>>> Right, and I doubt it's yours either. Or you would be the first native
>>>>> English speaker in my career that I fail to understand when
>>>>> communicating about Linux topics. (The only other explanations for that
>>>>> I can come up with are a) you suffer from dyslexia; or b) you write
>>>>> glibberish on purpose to annoy.)
>>>>>
>>>>> PSA: This is my last mail to you for this bug until you come up with a
>>>>> statement like:
>>>>>
>>>>> 	I tested Debian kernel image package version a.b.c-d and its
>>>>> 	broken with the following symptoms: [....]. The kernel image
>>>>> 	that occurs in the list on
>>>>> 	https://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux/ directly after that
>>>>> 	(i.e. version e.f.g-h) doesn't show these symptoms.
>>>> As if I need your messages with your dyslexia... :)
>>> I'm closing this bug along. If you can provide the above version
>>> please respond to this message with the required information and a
>>> control message to reopen the bugreport.
>> Are you read the post in the middle or only the end with the trash from Uwe?
>>
>> Then read the part to which I have nothing to add!!!
>>
>>> Kernel 5 what? E.g. which concrete version number? (output of uname -a).
>> user@debian:~$ cat /proc/version
>>
>> Linux version 5.10.0-32-amd64 (debian-kernel@lists.debian.org) (gcc-10
>> (Debian 10.2.1-6) 10.2.1 20210110, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.35.2)
>> #1 SMP Debian 5.10.223-1 (2024-08-10)
> Yes. And so you have then the last working 5.10.y version and knowing
> the next one released in Debian does not work. That means you can
> bisect now those two upstream stable series versions to identify which
> is the breaking commit with the described procedure to identify the
> breaking commit.

And you? :)

I very well know the bisecting approach, but I have no time, due to I 
have many other unresolved problems to spend this time on them.

> Once we have those biection results we might get a better idea with
> upstream's help on what do do.

Once I fix that, I won't need your participation in whether pushing the 
patch to the upstream or even starting myself builds, especially after 
definition my as a liar by closing the bug with such reasons.

Imagine for your, as an ordinal user will report this bug, when the 
installed system cannot even boot and he beginning Linux from Debian 
9,10,12,13!!! :)

And then imagine, as the ordinal user, who just tried Debian, will go to 
compile many kernels in the bisecting approach for detection the two 
controversy represents in different kernels. :)

And then imaging, as he'll prove the stack of the broken changes in 
mainstream! :)

And I have clashed with that MANY times for not throw myself immediately 
in the mess, when I can just apply the workaround and what I have 
expected from you!

And farewell, since I have no reason of further saying with you after 
the bug closing, since in Debian there "is no problem". :)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.kernel

csiph-web