From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Carlos R. Mafra" Subject: Re: 2.6.38-rc3-git1: Reported regressions 2.6.36 -> 2.6.37 Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 08:05:46 +0100 Message-ID: <20110204070546.GA12621__866.139334584837$1296833745$gmane$org@linux-yscl.site> References: <201102032009.17100.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Keith Packard , Linux SCSI List , Linux ACPI , Takashi Iwai , Network Development , Linux Wireless List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , DRI , Florian Mickler , Dave Airlie , Andrew Morton , Kernel Testers List , Dave Airlie , Linux PM List , Maciej Rutecki List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thu 3.Feb'11 at 17:11:14 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Keith Packard wrote: > > > > The goal is to make it so that when you *do* set a mode, DPMS gets set > > to ON (as the monitor will actually be "on" at that point). Here's a > > patch which does the DPMS_ON precisely when setting a mode. > > Ok, patch looks sane, but it does leave me with the "what about the > 'fb_changed' case?" question. Is that case basically guaranteed to not > change any existing dpms state? > > > (note, this patch compiles, but is otherwise only lightly tested). > > Carlos? Takashi? Ignore my crazy patch, try this one instead. Does it > fix things for you? Yes! (tested on top of 2.6.38-rc3+). Thanks to everyone involved!