On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Ville Syrjälä >> <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> The regressing patch change didn't add the message, so there was a clear >>> change in behaviour, and now it's papered over. >> >> It did move around the DRM_ERROR for all the others and also added the >> SDE one for consistency. At least that's how I read that patch - I >> could't find the SDE DRM_ERROR in the old code. Did I miss something? > > Yes. We tried and failed to point out that this is a bisected regression > with a bug report. The bad commit is *NOT* when the error message was > added or moved. The first bad commit is > > commit aaf5ec2e51ab1d9c5e962b4728a1107ed3ff7a3e > Author: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed Jul 8 17:07:47 2015 +0530 > > drm/i915: Handle HPD when it has actually occurred > > which triggers printing of the error message. This is all mentioned in > the bug, along with a few attempts at remedying the situation. Oops, I pasted the wrong commit into the commit message :( Sorry for all the confusion and me not noticing the real bisect result. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
