[stable] Fixup - Re: drm/i915 patches fix Latitude E6410 video issues.

[Steve Conklin]

On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 18:05 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 05:51:07PM -0500, Steve Conklin wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 13:45 -0500, Manoj Iyer wrote:
> > > Please consider the following upstream commits to stable 2.6.33.y
> > > 
> > > 1. drm/i915: add PANEL_UNLOCK_REGS definition
> > >     SHAID: 4a655f043160eeae447efd3be297b6b4c397a640
> > > 2. drm/i915: make sure eDP panel is turned on
> > >     SHAID: 9934c132989d5c488d2e15188220ce240960ce96
> 
> You do realize that these two aren't in the .34 tree either, right?
> Shouldn't they go to the .34-stable tree?
> 
> Remember, .33 is only getting one more release, and I'm really not
> wanting to do much work on it anymore.
> 
> > > Depends on
> > > 
> > > 3. drm/i915: Rename intel_output to intel_encoder.
> > >     SHAID: 21d40d37eca86872f2bf0af995809ebdef25c9d9
> 
> This one is in .34, so the above two should be fine for .34-stable.
> 
> > > These patches fix video issues on Dell Latitude E6410. Reported in bugs
> > > 
> > > http://launchpad.net/bugs/578673
> > > http://launchpad.net/bugs/561802
> > > 
> > > The patches apply cleanly to 2.6.33.y (see attachments), and they were 
> > > tested against the latest Lucid kernel and reported to fix the 2 issues. 
> > > Kernel was tested by user community, as well as, on hardware available at 
> > > Canonical.
> > > 
> > > Regarding the issue with dim back-light on resume, Jesse wrote to me saying 
> > > he suspects some other agent like firmware might be a suspect in zeroing 
> > > it out before the driver saves it, ie driver seems to do the right thing.
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > Manoj Iyer
> > 
> > (as Brad pointed out)
> > 1. I think that we're better off backporting this without the
> > driver-wide variable rename, until/unless that lands in stable, or it's
> > going to cause us pain for the rest of Lucid's lifetime when we take
> > stable patches. It's a lot of change compared with the six lines in 
> > the dependent patch.
> > 
> > 2. There was a bug in the upstream patch:
> > drm/i915: make sure eDP panel is turned on
> > which was fixed in a subsequent commit. backlight_off()was being called
> > twice and panel_off() was not being called.
> > 
> > This is fixed by including the upstream patch
> > drm/i915: make sure we shut off the panel in eDP configs
> > (also backported because of conflicts caused by the global rename)
> > 
> > 3. The drm-i915-add-PANEL_UNLOCK_REGS-definition patch is fine, but
> > needs to be applied before the others, the original patches were out of
> > order.
> > 
> > Attached are the three required patches in order, having dropped the
> > rename patch, and adding the fix for panel_off().
> > 
> > These replace the patches proposed in the original email.
> > 
> > They apply cleanly to lucid and to linux-2.6.33.y.
> 
> Mind if I just apply them to .34-stable instead?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

Sure.34 is a good place for these. I don't pay as much attention to .34
as the others, as we have no release based on it. We'll be supporting
.33 drm for a while yet in 10.04, a long-term release.

If you want to apply them to .34 you'll need the ones that I didn't bash
around the renaming. That's mainline commits:

4a655f043160eeae447efd3be297b6b4c397a640 drm/i915: add PANEL_UNLOCK_REGS
definition

9934c132989d5c488d2e15188220ce240960ce96 drm/i915: make sure eDP panel is turned on

5620ae29f1eabe655f44335231b580a78c8364ea drm/i915: make sure we shut off the panel in eDP configs

Steve

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kernel-team/attachments/20100729/2ec992de/attachment.sig>