[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zz2ehK4KoUbpdbBv@hovoldconsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 09:32:04 +0100
From: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To: Leonard Lausen <leonard@...sen.nl>
Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
György Kurucz <me@...uczgy.com>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jeykumar Sankaran <jsanka@...eaurora.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [v2,1/2] drm/msm/dpu1: don't choke on disabling the writeback
connector
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 10:02:33PM -0500, Leonard Lausen wrote:
> The finding is that while 6.10.14 with this patch applied still suffers from
> that regression, 6.11.9 and 6.12 do not face the CRTC state regression.
> Therefore, whatever issue the patch uncovered in older kernels and which
> justified not merging it before due to regressing basic CTM functionality, is
> now fixed. The patch should be good to merge and backport to 6.11, but from my
> perspective should not be backported to older kernels unless the interaction
> with the DRM CRTC state issue is understood and an associated fix backported as
> well.
Thanks for testing. The 6.9 and 6.10 stable trees are EOL and backporting
to 6.11 should not cause any trouble then.
Johan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists