From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759185AbaELQyN (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2014 12:54:13 -0400 Received: from mail-ee0-f46.google.com ([74.125.83.46]:56705 "EHLO mail-ee0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755366AbaELQyL (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2014 12:54:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 18:54:07 +0200 From: Daniel Vetter To: Jani Nikula Cc: Daniel Vetter , Dave Airlie , "intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Thomas Meyer Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] 3.15-rc5: Regression in i915 driver? Message-ID: <20140512165407.GT25056@phenom.ffwll.local> Mail-Followup-To: Jani Nikula , Dave Airlie , "intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Thomas Meyer References: <1399796911.2442.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87tx8v322l.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87tx8v322l.fsf@intel.com> X-Operating-System: Linux phenom 3.14.0+ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:09:54AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Sun, 11 May 2014, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Dave Airlie wrote: > >> On 11 May 2014 18:28, Thomas Meyer wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> 3.14.3 works as expected. > >>> 3.15-rc5 shows a strange behaviour: When resuming from ram the X server > >>> seems to be disfunctional. > >>> > >>> I see this WARNING in the kernel log before suspend to ram in the early > >>> boot process: > > > > Doesn't ring a bell really. > > - Is there anything in dmesg after resume? > > - How exactly does X misbehave? Is fbcon still working? Does X > > behaviour get restored if you restart X? > > - Can you please try to bisect this issue? Note that the backlight > > issue might be unrelated to the issues with X misbehaving after > > resume. You might need to do a bisect for both if the symptoms don't > > agree. > > I agree the WARNING from i965_enable_backlight() is unrelated. Focus on > the other symptoms first. The backlight backtrace seems to be a genuine new bug. Bisecting it would be highly appreciated. Bisecting on the other issue and appending the result to the bug Chris quoated should also really be useful - atm we don't have any reported who can reproduce this clearly enough to do a bisect. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch