On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Kamal Mostafa <kamal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 14:15 +0800, Shuduo Sang wrote: >> >> I hope at least 3.8 stable tree would like to backport this patch >> >> since the patch be merged into v3.9-rc5 and v3.8 is used widely. Loop >> >> kernel-team@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. > >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Kamal Mostafa <kamal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> > >> > but that commit says: >> > >> > This fixes problems caused by the following commit: >> > commit d6dd9eb1d96d2b7345fe4664066c2b7ed86da898 >> > Author: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> >> > Date: Tue Jan 29 16:35:20 2013 -0200 >> > drm/i915: dynamic Haswell display power well support >> > >> > But 3.8-stable doesn't include d6dd9eb. Is 2124b72 actually necessary >> > in 3.8? (Or at least, would it actually be useful?) > > On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 20:05 +0800, Shuduo Sang wrote: >> I think so. Thanks. > > After looking at it more closely, I'm pretty sure that this commit > (2124b72) just isn't relevant for 3.8-stable ... > > In 3.8, the i915 power wells simply all get enabled by > intel_init_power_wells() and nothing ever tries to disable them. This > commit commit tries to modify the routine intel_set_power_well() which > takes a boolean 'enable' param to enable or disable a power well -- but > that routine doesn't exist in 3.8 (it was added to i915 later). > > So, if I understand the commit description and the code correctly, 3.8 > doesn't doesn't need and couldn't make use of a "disable_power_well" > override boot parameter. > > If you still think it would be useful for 3.8-stable, please explain why > and supply a backport of the patch. > Thanks for your explaining. I will try to port it. > Thanks, > > -Kamal > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html