Re: Commit 500f7147cf5bafd139056d521536b10c2bc2e154 breaks _resume_

[Marc Koschewski]

* Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> [2011-02-07 11:06:45 +0100]:

OK,

seems like there's a fix for ACPI wakeup memory in tip/urgent. Maybe the fix relates to
this resume issue as well.

Marc

> At Mon, 7 Feb 2011 11:02:10 +0100,
> Marc Koschewski wrote:
> > 
> > Takashi,
> > 
> > is this potentially breaking S3 resume with nouveau cards, too?
> 
> There is no reset callback except for i915, so there shouldn't be any
> change for nouveau regarding these commits.
> 
> 
> Takashi
> 
> > Regards,
> > Marc
> > 
> > * Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> [2011-02-07 09:25:42 +0100]:
> > 
> > > At Mon, 7 Feb 2011 13:02:46 +0800,
> > > Jeff Chua wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >> One last step: move contents of intel_crtc_reset() back to
> > > > >> intel_crtc_init() one by one.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The active flag is my suspicion. I was thinking that we brought up the
> > > > >> outputs in a similar manner upon resume as upon initial boot. On
> > > > >> reflection, this is the not case.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> However, the first action we take inside modesetting is to disable the
> > > > >> outputs about to be reconfigured. So setting active should be the right
> > > > >> course of action so that cleanup any residual state from resume.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So I am intrigued as to which line is the cause, and just where the
> > > > >> machine becomes unresponsive...
> > > > >
> > > > > It's this line causing the problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > intel_crtc->active = true; /* force the pipe off on setup_init_config */
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > When it's called before entering intel_crtc_reset(&intel_crtc->base),
> > > > > it works, but if called within the function, it doesn't work. Strange.
> > > > > Not sure whether is passing the correct value to to_intel_crtc(crtc)?
> > > > 
> > > > I've added printk() below and the function returns a different value
> > > > of intel_crtc.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > static void intel_crtc_reset(struct drm_crtc *crtc)
> > > > {
> > > >         struct intel_crtc *intel_crtc = to_intel_crtc(crtc);
> > > >         printk("intel_crtc %p\n", intel_crtc); ===> intel_crtc ffff8802349d1000
> > > > 
> > > > }
> > > > 
> > > > printk("intel_crtc %p\n", intel_crtc); ===> intel_crtc ffff8802349d0000
> > > > intel_crtc_reset(&intel_crtc->base);
> > > 
> > > That's weird.  Since base is the first member, both intel_crtc and crtc
> > > must be identical.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Takashi
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Marc Koschewski
> > 
> 
> 

-- 
Marc Koschewski
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/