On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:03:57 +0100 Thomas Meyer <thomas@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Am 11.01.2010 um 17:55 schrieb Jesse Barnes > <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:53:04 +0100 > > Thomas Meyer <thomas@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Am Sonntag, den 10.01.2010, 23:56 +0100 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki: > >>> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a > >>> report of regressions introduced between 2.6.31 and 2.6.32. > >>> > >>> The following bug entry is on the current list of known > >>> regressions introduced between 2.6.31 and 2.6.32. Please verify > >>> if it still should be listed and let me know (either way). > >>> > >> > >> Yes, still should be listed. > >> > >> Problem still exists in 2.6.32.3 and 2.6.33-rc3-00097-g2c1f189, > >> that contains > >> this commit: > >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=cda9d05c499093c67b4a376a15009923acc2127a > >> > >> The above commit removes the render reclock support, that ought to > >> fix a common kind of problem encountered on i915 hardware, but not > >> on my machine. > >> > >> Still need to boot with "nomodeset" to have a workable system. > > > > Does this patch prevent the flicker? > > By the way: how often and in what interval is the function > intel_lvds_detect called? > > How long will/can the function acpi_lid_open take to complete? > Maybe some acpi interpretation takes really long? Is this possible? > > Would this explain the flickering? It should only be called when a client requests the connection status (e.g. xrandr or the GNOME display applet). The LVDS state will also be checked at ACPI LID event time, maybe your platforms is getting spurious LID events? If not, this bisection really confuses me... -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
