On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 07:32:30 +1000 > Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I'm in the 2-3 years at a minimum, with at least one kernel with no >> serious regressions in Intel KMS, which we haven't gotten close to >> yet. I'm not even sure the Intel guys are taking stable seriously >> enough yet. So far I don't think there is one kernel release (even >> stable) that works on all Intel chipsets without >> backporting patches. 2.6.32 needs the changes to remove the messed up >> render clock hacks which should really have been reverted a lot >> earlier since we had a lot of regression reports. The number of users >> using powersave=0 to get anything approaching useable is growing etc. > > But you could apply that argument to the existing DRM code (not just > Intel) as well; lots of things are broken or unimplemented and never > get fixed. I'd say the right metric isn't whether regressions are > introduced (usually due to new features) but whether the driver is > better than the old userspace code. For Intel at least, I think we're > already there. The quality of the kernel driver is higher and it has > many more features than the userspace implementation ever did. That's > just my subjective opinion, but I've done a *lot* of work on our bugs > both in userspace and in the kernel, so I think it's an accurate > statement. The problem is at any single point in time I'm not sure a kms kernel exists that works across all the Intel hw, which from a distro POV is a real pain in the ass, a regression gets fixed on one piece of hw just as another on a different piece gets introduced. I'd really like if Intel devs could either slow it down and do more testing before pushing to Linus, or be a lot quicker with the reverts when stuff is identified. The main thing is the render reclocking lately, thats been a nightmare and as far as I can see 2.6.32.3 still has all the issues, > > It doesn't have to happen anytime soon, I was just thinking that > removing the old, pre-KMS code would make it easier to avoid > introducing regressions since we'd have one less config (a bit one > atthat) to worry about. Maybe in 3-4 years. Dave. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
