[2.6.32.y] drm/i915: Attempt to fix watermark setup on 85x (v2)
From: Jonathan Nieder <hidden>
Date: 2012-06-26 04:15:08
Also in:
lkml
Subsystem:
drm drivers, intel drm i915 driver (meteor lake, dg2 and older excluding poulsbo, moorestown and derivative), the rest · Maintainers:
David Airlie, Simona Vetter, Jani Nikula, Joonas Lahtinen, Rodrigo Vivi, Tvrtko Ursulin, Linus Torvalds
From: Adam Jackson <redacted> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:20:57 -0400 commit 8f4695ed1c9e068772bcce4cd4ff03f88d57a008 upstream. IS_MOBILE() catches 85x, so we'd always try to use the 9xx FIFO sizing; since there's an explicit 85x version, this seems wrong. v2: Handle 830m correctly too. [jn: backport to 2.6.32.y to address https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42839] Signed-off-by: Adam Jackson <redacted> Signed-off-by: Eric Anholt <redacted> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <redacted> --- Hi Willy, Lukas Anzinger wrote[1]:
I've encountered a nasty bug in the drm/i915 part of Debian's stable kernel. The code is also present in 2.6.33.20, which is the latest stable upstream release of 2.6.33.y at the time of writing. During a refactoring of the i915 driver a regression has been introduced (commit e70236a8d3d0a4c100a0b9f7d394d9bda9c56aca): For some chipsets the wrong fifo size is determined which results in lot's of pixel errors when starting the xserver and choosing 800x600 as a resolution. If another resolution is used (eg. 1024x768 or 1280x1024), I don't encounter this problem.
Linux 2.6.32.y is presumably also affected because the problematic
commit was applied during the 2.6.32 merge window.
e70236a8d3d0 "drm/i915: split display functions by chip type",
2009-09-21
Lukas tested the fix against a kernel with 2.6.33.y-based drm
subsystem and found it to work:
8f4695ed1c9e drm/i915: Attempt to fix watermark setup on 85x (v2),
2010-04-16
and therefore Stefan is staging this fix for 2.6.32.y+drm33.z
(thanks!). Newer stable lines work fine already because the fix hit
mainline in v2.6.34-rc6.
The patch applies cleanly to v2.6.32.59 and is included below for
reference. I don't know if anyone has tested it there, though. All I
can say for now is that it is tested against 2.6.33-based kernels and
looks obviously correct. What do you think?
Hope that helps,
Jonathan
[1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42839
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 11 ++++++-----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
index 79cc437af3b8..25b3e903c67c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c@@ -4355,17 +4355,18 @@ static void intel_init_display(struct drm_device *dev) dev_priv->display.update_wm = g4x_update_wm; else if (IS_I965G(dev)) dev_priv->display.update_wm = i965_update_wm; - else if (IS_I9XX(dev) || IS_MOBILE(dev)) { + else if (IS_I9XX(dev)) { dev_priv->display.update_wm = i9xx_update_wm; dev_priv->display.get_fifo_size = i9xx_get_fifo_size; + } else if (IS_I85X(dev)) { + dev_priv->display.update_wm = i9xx_update_wm; + dev_priv->display.get_fifo_size = i85x_get_fifo_size; } else { - if (IS_I85X(dev)) - dev_priv->display.get_fifo_size = i85x_get_fifo_size; - else if (IS_845G(dev)) + dev_priv->display.update_wm = i830_update_wm; + if (IS_845G(dev)) dev_priv->display.get_fifo_size = i845_get_fifo_size; else dev_priv->display.get_fifo_size = i830_get_fifo_size; - dev_priv->display.update_wm = i830_update_wm; } }
--
1.7.11.rc3