Revert "drm/i915: Enable GMBUS for post-gen2 chipsets"
khali at linux-fr.org
Thu Jun 16 13:11:07 PDT 2011
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:39:35 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> wrote:
> > Hi Florian,
> > On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 13:28:15 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
> >> On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 19:34:56 -0000
> >> Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> wrote:
> >> > Revert commit 8f9a3f9b63b8cd3f03be9dc53533f90bd4120e5f. This fixes a
> >> > hang when loading the eeprom driver (see bug #35572.) GMBUS will be
> >> > re-enabled later, differently.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org>
> >> > Reported-by: Marek Otahal <markotahal at gmail.com>
> >> > Tested-by: Yermandu Patapitafious <yermandu.dev at gmail.com>
> >> > Tested-by: Andrew Lutomirski <luto at mit.edu>
> >> > Acked-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> >> > Cc: David Airlie <airlied at linux.ie>
> >> is this resolved some other way in the meantime?
> >> Regards,
> >> Flo
> >> : https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35572
> > Not that I know of (and I don't see any other way at least for 2.6.39.)
> > This is a shame, really, my revert patch should have been applied
> > several days ago already.
> > Keith, Chris, David, can you please get it rolling? This is a
> > regression presumably affecting a lot of users, we should really fix it
> > quickly, both in 2.6.39.x and 3.0-rc.
> This patch really had no info other than the bug link to tell me wtf its doing,
The patch I sent on June 4th (Message-ID:
<20110604213456.7ac5588e at endymion.delvare>) says:
Revert commit 8f9a3f9b63b8cd3f03be9dc53533f90bd4120e5f. This fixes a
hang when loading the eeprom driver (see bug #35572.) GMBUS will be
re-enabled later, differently.
Seems clear enough to me.
> I actually don't think reverting this is the correct fix, since it looks like
> the code path thats screws with the mutex still happens on GEN2 machines
> which unlucky for them.
No. Without the revert, the problem happens on every chip except GEN2.
With the revert, the problems shouldn't happen on any chip. At least
this is how I understand the code.
Anyway, you may not like the fix, but the fact is that commit
8f9a3f9b63b8cd3f03be9dc53533f90bd4120e5f caused a regression, so at
least for kernel 2.6.39, reverting it is the right thing to do. For
3.0.0, either someone comes up with an alternative fix and we can apply
it, or reverting the faulty commit is the way to go too.
We have a known regression affecting many users, we have the fix, let's
please apply it quickly. Further discussions should happen _later_.
> Chris, also I don't see an ack anywhere on the list, only some
> discussion in the bug,
I would indeed love to get a ack from Chris.
> I suspect the correct fix is to remove all the offending code instead
> of just putting back the piece
> of plaster that fell out of the wall.
Which "offending code" are you talking about?
We are fixing a regression here. It has to do with being fast and safe,
not with "the correct fix".
More information about the dri-devel