<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_ASSIGNED " title="ASSIGNED --- - [945gm regression] LVDS boots to blank screen" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53926#c38">Comment # 38</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_ASSIGNED " title="ASSIGNED --- - [945gm regression] LVDS boots to blank screen" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53926">bug 53926</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:daniel@ffwll.ch" title="Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>"> Daniel Vetter</a> <pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=53926#c37">comment #37</a>) > Of course I have. Oh, I've mixed up commit ids. The parent of the bisect commit is indeed in 3.4, so bisect can't really help us in drilling down further. The next trick is to do the reverse bisect to figure out where between c501ae7f332cdaf42e31af30b72b4b66cbbb1604 and v3.4 things have been fixed, so that we then can figure out why that fix has been lost again (hopefully). Now git bisect is not symmetric in good/bad, so it refuse to figure out by default where something has been fixed (i.e. the first good commit). Hence you need to mark every commit which is good as bad and every commit which is bad as good. Then the first bad commit should be the one which fixed the bug in 3.4.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>