https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95911
--- Comment #23 from gitne at excite.co.jp ---
(In reply to Alex Deucher from comment #20)
> Does this help?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_drv.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_drv.c
> index 5751446..1b4ac44 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_drv.c
> @@ -435,14 +435,14 @@ static int radeon_pmops_freeze(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
> struct drm_device *drm_dev = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
> - return radeon_suspend_kms(drm_dev, false, true);
> + return radeon_suspend_kms(drm_dev, true, true);
> }
>
> static int radeon_pmops_thaw(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
> struct drm_device *drm_dev = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
> - return radeon_resume_kms(drm_dev, false, true);
> + return radeon_resume_kms(drm_dev, true, true);
> }
>
> static int radeon_pmops_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
Thank you for digging into this. Again, I do not have the capacity to build a
Linux kernel. Could you do this for me? Then, I could also test it on my older
machine, which could potentially greatly improve support for many other
machines at the same time.
So far, radeon.msi=0 works for me as a workaround. I do not know how much of a
performance penalty this incurs but things seem to work smoothly. To quantify
any penalty, some exact measurements are required. However, since radeon.msi=1
does not work smoothly, it is going to be difficult to assess any quantifiable
results (and be able to compare them to radeon.msi=0) in this case. Can you
give me a hint as to what benchmarks I could/should run?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
