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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1271639 > unrolled thread

Re: Regression on Chromebook Pixel 2015 due to i915 fastboot always-on

Back to article view | Back to linux.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

  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

#1271639 — Re: Regression on Chromebook Pixel 2015 due to i915 fastboot always-on

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/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1271928

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> 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.

Based on the logs from Olof, looks like a modeset would be required to
enable backlight, instead of just cranking up the brightness. So agreed
on the revert.

> 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?

Moreover, you can't just enable the backlight at will, it needs to
follow the panel power sequence. You have to enable the PWM first, and
toggle the power sequencer backlight bit after that. Encoder specific
hooks can handle that. Though might still be safest to just force a
modeset on machines in weird state at driver load.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1272339

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Jani Nikula
<jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Based on the logs from Olof, looks like a modeset would be required to
> enable backlight, instead of just cranking up the brightness. So agreed
> on the revert.

Should I just do the revert myself in my tree, or will I get it
through the drm tree?

                  Linus
--
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/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1272567 — Re: Regression on Chromebook Pixel 2015 due to i915 fastboot always-on

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> To: "Jani Nikula" <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: "Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>, "Olof Johansson" <olof@lixom.net>, "Maarten Lankhorst"
> <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>, "Dave Airlie" <airlied@redhat.com>, "Duncan Laurie" <dlaurie@chromium.org>,
> "dri-devel" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>, "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> Sent: Thursday, 19 November, 2015 2:18:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Regression on Chromebook Pixel 2015 due to i915 fastboot always-on
> 
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Jani Nikula
> <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Based on the logs from Olof, looks like a modeset would be required to
> > enable backlight, instead of just cranking up the brightness. So agreed
> > on the revert.
> 
> Should I just do the revert myself in my tree, or will I get it
> through the drm tree?

I'm assuming I'll get a pull request from Jani by the end of the week, and I'll
pass it on to you as per normal, but it might be good if he could accelerate that.

Dave.
--
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/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1273225

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, David Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> wrote:
> I'm assuming I'll get a pull request from Jani by the end of the week,
> and I'll pass it on to you as per normal, but it might be good if he
> could accelerate that.

Done. http://mid.gmane.org/87vb8yt4a2.fsf@intel.com

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web