[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=Z1fCA1N47YaCh1tn=PCAAboWtNCUyUH-N3yUo@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:48:58 +0800
From: Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@...il.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Commit 500f7147cf5bafd139056d521536b10c2bc2e154 breaks _resume_
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> One last step: move contents of intel_crtc_reset() back to
> intel_crtc_init() one by one.
>
> The active flag is my suspicion. I was thinking that we brought up the
> outputs in a similar manner upon resume as upon initial boot. On
> reflection, this is the not case.
>
> However, the first action we take inside modesetting is to disable the
> outputs about to be reconfigured. So setting active should be the right
> course of action so that cleanup any residual state from resume.
>
> So I am intrigued as to which line is the cause, and just where the
> machine becomes unresponsive...
It's this line causing the problem.
intel_crtc->active = true; /* force the pipe off on setup_init_config */
When it's called before entering intel_crtc_reset(&intel_crtc->base),
it works, but if called within the function, it doesn't work. Strange.
Not sure whether is passing the correct value to to_intel_crtc(crtc)?
Jeff
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists