linux-kernel - Re: [KERNEL] Re: [KERNEL] Regression bug in drm/i915, Wrong assumption in commit e11aa36 breaks suspend on at least lenovo x61

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKMK7uHr0H+S6_BtALG2oZr2CypEBBr5DiE-DQsr1XhAPrkkhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 22 Feb 2015 11:30:58 +0100
From:	Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To:	Klaus Ethgen <Klaus+lkml@...gen.de>
Cc:	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
	Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>,
	"intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [KERNEL] Re: [KERNEL] Regression bug in drm/i915, Wrong
 assumption in commit e11aa36 breaks suspend on at least lenovo x61

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Klaus Ethgen <Klaus+lkml@...gen.de> wrote:
> Am Mi den 18. Feb 2015 um 16:39 schrieb Jani Nikula:
>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015, Klaus Ethgen <Klaus+lkml@...gen.de> wrote:
>> > After solving  the conflicts, I applied the revert (see attachment) to
>> > v3.18.7. I think it should also apply to the current head. With that
>> > patch, suspend is working again on that version.
>> >
>> > However, I have not to deep knowledge of that subsystem, so please,
>> > someone who have, have a deeper look into it. I especially do not know
>> > if the lines in .../intel_pm.c are correct or better leaving them as
>> > they are in v3.18.7.
>> >
>> > I want to have it working on a version that I know is stable before
>> > asking to pull it to head.
>>
>> Hi Klaus, we fear this patch may hide the actual cause.
>
> That might be. But that might be a second step, to find the actual
> cause. I think first the patch that causes the problem should be
> fixed/reverted to have a working kernel and the next step would be to
> find the real cause.

I think the rever also breaks soix on newer platforms. Instead I think
intel_runtime_pm_disable_interrupts needs to grow a synchronize_irq()
after having disabled all the interrupt sources. But that's just
drive-by debugging, I might be off the charts ;-)
-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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/