<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - [SKL] [regression] Random display flickering on Kernel 4.8 with dual-screen" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97450#c29">Comment # 29</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - [SKL] [regression] Random display flickering on Kernel 4.8 with dual-screen" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97450">bug 97450</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:rockorequin@hotmail.com" title="rockorequin@hotmail.com">rockorequin@hotmail.com</a> <pre>> Based on your comments, I can see that: > - Patch "fix DDB partitioning" improves the situation but > doesn't completely solve the problem > - Patch "unconditionally apply memory WAs" helps solving the > remaining issues. > > Is that correct? Yes, I think that should be correct, although I should probably test for longer because "fix DDB partitioning" reduces the occurrence of the flickering considerably so I should give it a chance to re-occur. But so far, so good. (FWIW, "fix DDB partitioning" also fixes <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed" title="RESOLVED FIXED - [SKL] [regression] Flickering artefact window at top left of screens in kernel 4.8-rc5" href="show_bug.cgi?id=97596">https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97596</a>, so it's an important patch.) I am still seeing some atomic update failure messages in the log with my patched 4.8.1. For example: [ 955.923097] [drm:intel_pipe_update_end [i915]] *ERROR* Atomic update failure on pipe B (start=55693 end=55694) time 102 us, min 1073, max 1079, scanline start 1072, end 1079 Are they anything to be concerned about?</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>