Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhin...@quicinc.com> writes: >>>> There is no need to add the 100ms delay back yet. >>>> >>>> thanks for posting this but NAK on this patch till we post the fix this >>>> week. >>>> >>>> Appreciate a bit of patience till then. >>> >>> This regression is already part of the 6.3 stable release series. Will >>> the new patch qualify for inclusion in 6.3.y? Or will it be part of 6.4 >>> and this revert should go into 6.3.y? >> >> This is a tough situation, as landing a revert will break x13s, as noted >> by Bjorn. Given that the workaround is known at this moment, I would >> like to wait for the patch from Abhinav to appear, then we can decide >> which of the fixes should go to the stable kernel.
I wasn't able to find new patches, though may have missed them. Is there a decision yet how to proceed with this regression? 6.2 now being EOL may make this a good moment to decide on the next steps. >>> [ 275.025497] [drm:dpu_encoder_phys_vid_wait_for_commit_done:488] >>> [dpu error]vblank timeout >>> [ 275.025514] [drm:dpu_kms_wait_for_commit_done:510] [dpu error]wait >>> for commit done returned -110 >>> [ 275.064141] [drm:dpu_encoder_frame_done_timeout:2382] [dpu >>> error]enc33 frame done timeout > > This is a different crash but the root-cause of both the issues is the > bridge hpd_enable/disable series. > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/514414/ > > This is breaking the sequence and logic of internal hpd as per my > discussion with kuogee. > > We are analyzing the issue and the fix internally first and once we > figure out all the details will post it. Thank you!
