Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1271639
| From | Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: Regression on Chromebook Pixel 2015 due to i915 fastboot always-on |
| Date | 2015-11-17 21:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qvVcK-1sl-17@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qvVcK-1sl-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <qvVcK-1sl-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <qvVcK-1sl-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <qvVcK-1sl-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <qvVcK-1sl-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: >> >> The problem as I see it is that it's unknown how many machines depends >> on previous behavior. If it's only Pixel 2015 then I think a whitelist >> would be just fine. > > Considering how many problems we historically have had with backlight > handling, I would strongly urge people to *not* start going down the > whitelist approach. > > If the backlight doesn't get set up correctly, the machine might as > well be considered dead. Very few people are going to give good > reports of it. So the backlight code needs to bend oevr backwards in > being robust even more so than most other code, and "whitelist > known-working setups" is absolutely the reverse of robust. It's a > hack, and it's guaranteed to not be maintainable. > > Yes, yes, we have whitelists for other things. I hate them in other > places too. But things like "this device has very odd audio > configuration" is very different from "this machine appears dead on > boot", for example. > > So reverting quickly is definitely the right thing to do. Or applying > the patch that apparently fixes it for Olof, and hopefully fixes it in > general - without any kind of random "on _this_ machine we do _that_" > crap. > > If drm people don't want the revert, send me a pull request with the fix. Imo revert. With all the QA awol fail we've suffered the past few months we've become a bit too lax imo with reverting fast, and the point of the split-out commit was to allow exactly that. On top I don't really like the casting Maarten's current hack does, we probably need a per-encoder ->sanitize hook for this stuff. Better to retry for 4.5. Can you pls push the revert? Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Regression on Chromebook Pixel 2015 due to i915 fastboot always-on Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> - 2015-11-17 21:40 +0100
Re: Regression on Chromebook Pixel 2015 due to i915 fastboot always-on Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> - 2015-11-18 09:30 +0100
Re: Regression on Chromebook Pixel 2015 due to i915 fastboot always-on Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-11-18 17:20 +0100
Re: Regression on Chromebook Pixel 2015 due to i915 fastboot always-on David Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> - 2015-11-18 22:00 +0100
Re: Regression on Chromebook Pixel 2015 due to i915 fastboot always-on Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> - 2015-11-19 16:50 +0100
csiph-web