[Pm-utils] Problems with 98smart-kernel-video and intel graphics chipsets

Matthew Garrett mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org
Sun Sep 28 03:17:47 PDT 2008

On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 08:47:26PM -0500, Victor Lowther wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-09-28 at 00:10 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > No, there's no deterministic way to determine whether the BIOS code will 
> > correctly deal with the state that the DRM code programs. It's entirely 
> > possible for a previously required quirk to start breaking machines. 
> > That's why we removed the quirks on these kernels in the first place.
> No, we removed them becuase you assured me that they were no longer
> required.  You were mistaken.

Bugs happen. I didn't ask for the code to be removed because it wasn't 
necessary, I asked for the code to be removed because it now actively 
breaks some machines. I'm fully aware that this is a less than ideal 

> In either case, I think the code required for Intel kernel modesetting
> is already getting too complicated to live in pm-utils -- if knowledge
> of the system, bios revision, video card, video driver, and kernel
> revision will be required to determine the appropriate set of quirks
> (and an answer of none will be required is not the right blanket
> answer), this stuff needs to go in the quirks list in HAL.  If the quirk
> detection in HAL is not smart enough, it needs to be made smart enough
> to handle all those variables.  If it cannot be made smart enough in
> HAL, we need a new mechanism for handling quirks.

No, the quirks handling just needs to die. Utterly. Entirely. It can't 
be fixed. It's unscalable. Trying to improve it at this point is a waste 
of time that would be better spent on fixing up the kernel.

Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org

More information about the Pm-utils mailing list