Hi,
On 20-06-16 21:06, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 17-06-16 19:54, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 17-06-16 18:35, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Justin Forbes <jforbes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This does indeed sound like a good plan, and would be much appreciated.
We'd also need to land it in 4.7 too?
Yes, I'll take care of that too, though after doing it for 4.6.
Ok, I've just backported the set to 4.6 and pushed it to the stabilization
branch. This has been tested on a skylake desktop and a skylake laptop,
with multiple monitors, display-port hotplug, suspend-resume, etc.
I'll port it to 4.7 tomorrow, likely won't push it till wednesday
morning though (building takes forever, so I'll start the build tomorrow,
then test push wednesday).
And I've just pushed the 4.7 port (same testing done as with the 4.6 port).
Regards,
Hans
Regards,
Hans
Hi Fedora kernel team,
If you look at:
https://retrace.fedoraproject.org/faf/problems/
And look for skl_update_other_pipe_wm there, you will see
that it is completely dominating the problem report stats
(listed 4 times on the first page, 5 times on the second).
As such I'm thinking about backporting the patches:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/intel-gfx/msg95595.html
To the Fedora 4.6 kernel.
Some of the reported problems are only a WARN_ON triggering,
but there are also quite a few cases of actually wrong
watermark settings causing various real problems.
These patches have been around for a long time, but they missed
the 4.6 merge window, and then also the 4.7 merge window, they
are in next now. But IMHO we should grab them now since the
problems they are causing are too big to wait for 4.8
hitting Fedora.
So I would like to backport these to the 4.6 Fedora kernel
and have this completed before we start pushing 4.6 updated
to updates-testing. This way we can use the entire Fedora 4.6
testing phase to also test the backported fixes.
Before I spend time on this, does this sound like a good
plan ? I've already discussed this within the graphics
team and the consensus there seems to be that this is a good
idea.
Regards,
Hans
_______________________________________________
kernel mailing list
kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
kernel mailing list
kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
kernel mailing list
kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
