<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_REOPENED " title="REOPENED - [Regression] backlight flickering/display artifacting on Broadwell integrated graphics with 4.12-rc1" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101111#c57">Comment # 57</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_REOPENED " title="REOPENED - [Regression] backlight flickering/display artifacting on Broadwell integrated graphics with 4.12-rc1" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101111">bug 101111</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:n7u4722r35@ynzlx.anonbox.net" title="Mark Spencer <n7u4722r35@ynzlx.anonbox.net>"> Mark Spencer</a> <pre>(In reply to Jani Nikula from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=101111#c56">comment #56</a>) > There's a distinction between a) enabling PSR to actively work on fixing > issues related to it, and b) enabling PSR because some forum said you should > and then filing issues here because it doesn't work out for you. I didn't fill myself any new issue about this. I only joined discussion which already started here and on previous related bugreport. Also I have PSR in working state for more than a year with dirtyfix I created myself. Meanwhile I provided all information I can everytime one of developers asked. I recompiled my kernel with every patch that was proposed, tested it and posted logs. > We've disabled PSR by default because there have been so many issues with > it, and we can't handle the influx of bugs. We keep fixing stuff in the > background, but at the same time we close PSR bugs as not supported. For > example, in the case of this bug, it took until <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=101111#c44">comment #44</a> to realize this > is a PSR related bug. You also insisted on merging what would have been the > completely wrong patch, and would have made debugging future PSR problems > even harder. My gut feeling in <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=101111#c21">comment #21</a> was spot on. The problem is that I didn't submit those two bugreports myself and they weren't very clear in my opinion. I tried bring some new information but it was probably lost in translation. I think PSR was enabled in every log I posted. I wrote explicitly about PSR in <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_CLOSED bz_closed" title="CLOSED DUPLICATE - [bdw regression 4.8] Severe graphics regression, rainbow glitching and flickering on Intel Broadwell 5500U integrated graphics" href="show_bug.cgi?id=97918#c22">https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97918#c22</a> in February. Honestly I thought that devs knew this issue is strictly connected to PSR. Also that was You who insisted on merging wrong solution <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_REOPENED " title="REOPENED - [Regression] backlight flickering/display artifacting on Broadwell integrated graphics with 4.12-rc1" href="show_bug.cgi?id=101111#c5">https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101111#c5</a> . My first post in this topic is after that comment of yours. > So there'll be a happy ending to this bug, the driver will get a bit better > now, and we're a bit closer to enabling PSR, thank you for that. But perhaps > you'll see that there's a reason we generally close what we think are > category b) bugs as not supported. I agree with you but I hope you reconsider my role after reading my explanations above. I believe everything is clear now. Many thanks for you and all the rest of the devs who helped.</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>