linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] DRM / i915: Fix resume regression on MSI Wind U100 w/o KMS

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <201001112204.36724.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:04:36 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
Cc:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jerome Glisse <glisse@...edesktop.org>,
	Dave Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	dri-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] DRM / i915: Fix resume regression on MSI Wind U100 w/o KMS

On Monday 11 January 2010, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 07:32:30 +1000
> > Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com> wrote:
> >> I'm in the 2-3 years at a minimum, with at least one kernel with no
> >> serious regressions in Intel KMS, which we haven't gotten close to
> >> yet. I'm not even sure the Intel guys are taking stable seriously
> >> enough yet. So far I don't think there is one kernel release (even
> >> stable) that works on all Intel chipsets without
> >> backporting patches. 2.6.32 needs the changes to remove the messed up
> >> render clock hacks which should really have been reverted a lot
> >> earlier since we had a lot of regression reports. The number of users
> >> using powersave=0 to get anything approaching useable is growing etc.
> >
> > But you could apply that argument to the existing DRM code (not just
> > Intel) as well; lots of things are broken or unimplemented and never
> > get fixed.  I'd say the right metric isn't whether regressions are
> > introduced (usually due to new features) but whether the driver is
> > better than the old userspace code.  For Intel at least, I think we're
> > already there.  The quality of the kernel driver is higher and it has
> > many more features than the userspace implementation ever did.  That's
> > just my subjective opinion, but I've done a *lot* of work on our bugs
> > both in userspace and in the kernel, so I think it's an accurate
> > statement.
> 
> The problem is at any single point in time I'm not sure a kms kernel
> exists that works across all the Intel hw, which from a distro POV is a real
> pain in the ass, a regression gets fixed on one piece of hw just as
> another on a different piece gets introduced.
> 
> I'd really like if Intel devs could either slow it down and do more testing
> before pushing to Linus, or be a lot quicker with the reverts when stuff
> is identified. The main thing is the render reclocking lately, thats been a
> nightmare and as far as I can see 2.6.32.3 still has all the issues,

Hmm, are you trying to say radeon is better at that?

My experience is quite the opposite to be honest.

Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/