Re: [Intel-gfx] drm/i915: WARN_ON_ONCE(!crtc_clock || cdclk < crtc_clock)

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, Paul Bolle wrote: > [Detailed post, but please give it a quick scan.] Please file the information in the bug you filed. Please attach dmesg (again, on the bug) with drm.debug=14 and running your patch. BR, Jani. > > On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 14:06 +0200,

Re: [Intel-gfx] drm/i915: WARN_ON_ONCE(!crtc_clock || cdclk < crtc_clock)

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, Paul Bolle wrote: > [Detailed post, but please give it a quick scan.] Please file the information in the bug you filed. Please attach dmesg (again, on the bug) with drm.debug=14 and running your patch. BR, Jani. > > On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 14:06 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: >>

Re: [Intel-gfx] drm/i915: WARN_ON_ONCE(!crtc_clock || cdclk < crtc_clock)

[Detailed post, but please give it a quick scan.] On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 14:06 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 14:08 +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > > Bisecting the offending commit between v4.8 and v4.8.1 would be a good > > start. > > That would be between v4.7 and v4.8. (I

Re: [Intel-gfx] drm/i915: WARN_ON_ONCE(!crtc_clock || cdclk < crtc_clock)

[Detailed post, but please give it a quick scan.] On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 14:06 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 14:08 +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > > Bisecting the offending commit between v4.8 and v4.8.1 would be a good > > start. > > That would be between v4.7 and v4.8. (I

Re: [Intel-gfx] drm/i915: WARN_ON_ONCE(!crtc_clock || cdclk < crtc_clock)

[Adding Matt] On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 14:08 +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > Bisecting the offending commit between v4.8 and v4.8.1 would be a good > start. 0) Why use a personal notebook when one can just post any half baked idea to lkml? 1) I stumbled on 

Re: [Intel-gfx] drm/i915: WARN_ON_ONCE(!crtc_clock || cdclk < crtc_clock)

[Adding Matt] On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 14:08 +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > Bisecting the offending commit between v4.8 and v4.8.1 would be a good > start. 0) Why use a personal notebook when one can just post any half baked idea to lkml? 1) I stumbled on 

Re: [Intel-gfx] drm/i915: WARN_ON_ONCE(!crtc_clock || cdclk < crtc_clock)

On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 14:06 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > That might take some time. Because bisecting always takes a long time > and especially since hitting this WARNING sometimes takes over an hour. > Anyhow, please prod me if I stay silent for too long. For the record: I just had to power cycle

Re: [Intel-gfx] drm/i915: WARN_ON_ONCE(!crtc_clock || cdclk < crtc_clock)

On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 14:06 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > That might take some time. Because bisecting always takes a long time > and especially since hitting this WARNING sometimes takes over an hour. > Anyhow, please prod me if I stay silent for too long. For the record: I just had to power cycle

Re: [Intel-gfx] drm/i915: WARN_ON_ONCE(!crtc_clock || cdclk < crtc_clock)

On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 17:34 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > In the mean time, please file a bug over at [1] so we don't lose > track. Done:  https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98214 Paul Bolle

Re: [Intel-gfx] drm/i915: WARN_ON_ONCE(!crtc_clock || cdclk < crtc_clock)

On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 17:34 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > In the mean time, please file a bug over at [1] so we don't lose > track. Done:  https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98214 Paul Bolle

Re: [Intel-gfx] drm/i915: WARN_ON_ONCE(!crtc_clock || cdclk < crtc_clock)

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Paul Bolle wrote: > On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 14:08 +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: >> Bisecting the offending commit between v4.8 and v4.8.1 would be a good >> start. > > That would be between v4.7 and v4.8. (I guess my report was ambiguous.) > > That might

Re: [Intel-gfx] drm/i915: WARN_ON_ONCE(!crtc_clock || cdclk < crtc_clock)

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Paul Bolle wrote: > On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 14:08 +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: >> Bisecting the offending commit between v4.8 and v4.8.1 would be a good >> start. > > That would be between v4.7 and v4.8. (I guess my report was ambiguous.) > > That might take some time. Because

Re: [Intel-gfx] drm/i915: WARN_ON_ONCE(!crtc_clock || cdclk < crtc_clock)

On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 14:08 +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > Bisecting the offending commit between v4.8 and v4.8.1 would be a good > start. That would be between v4.7 and v4.8. (I guess my report was ambiguous.) That might take some time. Because bisecting always takes a long time and especially

Re: [Intel-gfx] drm/i915: WARN_ON_ONCE(!crtc_clock || cdclk < crtc_clock)

On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 14:08 +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > Bisecting the offending commit between v4.8 and v4.8.1 would be a good > start. That would be between v4.7 and v4.8. (I guess my report was ambiguous.) That might take some time. Because bisecting always takes a long time and especially

Re: [Intel-gfx] drm/i915: WARN_ON_ONCE(!crtc_clock || cdclk < crtc_clock)

On ke, 2016-10-12 at 11:56 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > On a laptop that tracks the latest stable release (Ie, it now runs > v4.8.1) I see this WARNING >     WARN_ON_ONCE(!crtc_clock || cdclk < crtc_clock) > > Full trace pasted below. I never saw this WARNING before v4.8. Since > v4.8 I've had it

Re: [Intel-gfx] drm/i915: WARN_ON_ONCE(!crtc_clock || cdclk < crtc_clock)

On ke, 2016-10-12 at 11:56 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > On a laptop that tracks the latest stable release (Ie, it now runs > v4.8.1) I see this WARNING >     WARN_ON_ONCE(!crtc_clock || cdclk < crtc_clock) > > Full trace pasted below. I never saw this WARNING before v4.8. Since > v4.8 I've had it