<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:43, Daniel Vetter <<a href="mailto:daniel@ffwll.ch">daniel@ffwll.ch</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 09:34:28AM -0200, Eugeni Dodonov wrote: > This allows to avoid talking to a non-responding bus repeatedly until we > finally timeout after 15 attempts. We can do this by catching the -ENXIO > error, provided by i2c_algo_bit:bit_doAddress call. > > Within the bit_doAddress we already try 3 times to get the edid data, so > if the routine tells us that bus is not responding, it is mostly pointless > to keep re-trying those attempts over and over again until we reach final > number of retries. > > This change should fix <a href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41059" target="_blank">https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41059</a> > and improve overall edid detection timing by 10-30% in most cases, and by > a much larger margin in case of phantom outputs (up to 30x in one worst > case). > > Timing results for i915-powered machines for 'time xrandr' command: > Machine 1: from 0.840s to 0.290s > Machine 2: from 0.315s to 0.280s > Machine 3: from +/- 4s to 0.184s > > Timing results for HD5770 with 'time xrandr' command: > Machine 4: from 3.210s to 1.060s > > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <<a href="mailto:chris@hchris-wilson.co.uk">chris@hchris-wilson.co.uk</a>> > Reviewed-by: Keith Packard <<a href="mailto:keithp@keithp.com">keithp@keithp.com</a>> > Tested-by: Sean Finney <<a href="mailto:seanius@seanius.net">seanius@seanius.net</a>> > Tested-by: Soren Hansen <<a href="mailto:soren@linux2go.dk">soren@linux2go.dk</a>> > Tested-by: Hernando Torque <<a href="mailto:sirius@sonnenkinder.org">sirius@sonnenkinder.org</a>> > Tested-by: Mike Lothian <<a href="mailto:mike@fireburn.co.uk">mike@fireburn.co.uk</a>> > Bugzilla: <a href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41059" target="_blank">https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41059</a> > Signed-off-by: Eugeni Dodonov <<a href="mailto:eugeni.dodonov@intel.com">eugeni.dodonov@intel.com</a>> </div></div>Imo it's too late for such a change with decent potential to blow up to land in 3.3. I think this needs some decent shakeout time in Dave's drm-next tree (despite all r-b's and tested-bys it already gathered) and hence is imo 3.4 material at this stage. </blockquote><div> I'd be happy to include it into any kernel out there, 3.4 would be fine. I originally sent it for 3.1 merge though, and so far it haven't been picked up by any tree. So I am a bit lost about what to do with this next, besides re-sending the same patch over and over again... </div></div> -- Eugeni Dodonov<a href="http://eugeni.dodonov.net/" target="_blank"> </a>