From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Airlie Subject: Re: 2.6.38-rc3-git1: Reported regressions 2.6.36 -> 2.6.37 Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:42:33 +1000 Message-ID: References: <201102032009.17100.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: 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 , Carlos Mafra , Linux Wireless List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , DRI , Florian Mickler , Network Development , Dave Airlie , Andrew Morton , Kernel Testers List , Linux PM List , Maciej Rutecki List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:11 AM, 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? Yes its inconsistent behaviour but nothing in the fb_changed case will affect the DPMS state. I expect we should probably do that so all paths via that function turn DPMS on, and it'll be consistent, might be something for 39. Dave.