Keith Packard <keithp@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 14:56:19 +0300, Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> There's no mention that the i915 developers know about this problem so >> I'm CC'ing Keith and Chris. > > Thanks. I've added a comment to the bug: > > First off, of course you are encouraged to re-test with 3.0-rc6 just to > make sure it hasn't changed in some way. I don't think anything has > changed enough to affect this, but it's always good to be sure. > > I note a long sequence of patches that are supposed to help with the > U160: > > 448f53a1ede54eb854d036abf54573281412d650 drm/i915/bios: Reverse order of 100/120 Mhz SSC clocks > bcfbbce822d219eb587acaba8a6e062bbeae4761 Revert "drm/i915/bios: Reverse order of 100/120 Mhz SSC clocks" > a76150302d6e7ebc43e1a1ddaee7fd51db8da3b3 drm/i915: Add a module option to override the use of SSC > > I'm not sure why a quirk wasn't added for this hardware; it's clearly > 'non-standard' in some mystic way. On June 27th, I proposed that Robse perhaps could try the workaround that was introduced with the latter commit: i915.lvds_use_ssc=0. It works well on my hardware and probably solves his problem as well, but he did not respond... Dirk [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/6/27/45 -- 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
