[Bug 596844] New: intel [GM45]: screen is flickering
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c0 Summary: intel [GM45]: screen is flickering Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE 11.3 Version: Milestone 5 Platform: x86-64 OS/Version: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: X.Org AssignedTo: bnc-team-xorg-bugs@forge.provo.novell.com ReportedBy: seife@novell.slipkontur.de QAContact: xorg-maintainer-bugs@forge.provo.novell.com Found By: Community User Blocker: --- On my Thinkpad X200s, the screen is flickering all the time, apparently whenever an update is happening or something like that (gkrellm with a 1 second update interval seems to lead to 1 second flicker intervals). If I give i915.powersave=0 as a boot parameter, everything is fine. I found the hint here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+source/xserver-xorg-video-intel/+bu... -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c
Stefan Seyfried
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c
Stefan Dirsch
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c1
--- Comment #1 from Stefan Dirsch
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c2
Stefan Dirsch
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c3
--- Comment #3 from Stefan Dirsch
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c4
Stefan Seyfried
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c5
Stefan Dirsch
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c6
--- Comment #6 from Stefan Dirsch
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c
Stefan Dirsch
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c7
Stefan Seyfried
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c8
--- Comment #8 from Stephan Kulow
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c9
Stefan Dirsch
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c
Will Stephenson
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c10
--- Comment #10 from Will Stephenson
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c11
Greg Kroah-Hartman
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c12
Stefan Dirsch
Stefan, is that patch upstream?
Of course it is not.
If not, care to push it there?
No, it won't be accepted, since Intel developers are going to claim that it works for them.
I can't just disable something like that for our kernel without upstream also taking it.
Great. So our user base needs to suffer from upstream decisions, since we're not interested in adjusting the upstream kernel to our user's needs. Makes perfectly sense. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c13
--- Comment #13 from Greg Kroah-Hartman
(In reply to comment #11)
Stefan, is that patch upstream?
Of course it is not.
If not, care to push it there?
No, it won't be accepted, since Intel developers are going to claim that it works for them.
But if it does, then perhaps something else is wrong on this hardware?
I can't just disable something like that for our kernel without upstream also taking it.
Great. So our user base needs to suffer from upstream decisions, since we're not interested in adjusting the upstream kernel to our user's needs. Makes perfectly sense.
We are not interested in taking patches to our kernel that are not going to be accepted upstream as we would be responsible for maintaining them for the next 10+ years. Again, try submitting this upstream (or the original problem), I'm sure they will work with you to resolve the issue. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c14
--- Comment #14 from Matthias Hopf
If not, care to push it there? No, it won't be accepted, since Intel developers are going to claim that it works for them. But if it does, then perhaps something else is wrong on this hardware?
Drivers for graphics hardware are in an abominable state, still. Which is related to the fact that there is no single more complex system in a computer than the GPU. And intel especially did an excellent job in the past with changing functionality on a very subtle level. The driver is known to have races. A number of them. They are not fixed yet because it's unknown *where* they are.
Great. So our user base needs to suffer from upstream decisions, since we're not interested in adjusting the upstream kernel to our user's needs. Makes perfectly sense.
We are not interested in taking patches to our kernel that are not going to be accepted upstream as we would be responsible for maintaining them for the next 10+ years.
Let me be blunt: You're suggesting that we're taking the blame for something that doesn't work, but do not disable it even though we know it doesn't work?!? I know we want to use only upstream supported stuff in our kernel. I didn't know that we also want to absolutely keep broken stuff for the sake of it. Sigh.
Again, try submitting this upstream (or the original problem), I'm sure they will work with you to resolve the issue.
Yes, and it will take several months, with additional issues popping up. At least longer than we have time. Not because upstream developers are idiots, but because debugging these issues takes enormous time and *exactly* the same hardware. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c15
--- Comment #15 from Stefan Seyfried
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c16
--- Comment #16 from Greg Kroah-Hartman
(In reply to comment #13)
Great. So our user base needs to suffer from upstream decisions, since we're not interested in adjusting the upstream kernel to our user's needs. Makes perfectly sense.
We are not interested in taking patches to our kernel that are not going to be accepted upstream as we would be responsible for maintaining them for the next 10+ years.
Let me be blunt: You're suggesting that we're taking the blame for something that doesn't work, but do not disable it even though we know it doesn't work?!?
If we disable it, what else will break?
I know we want to use only upstream supported stuff in our kernel. I didn't know that we also want to absolutely keep broken stuff for the sake of it.
How can we reliably delete a big chunk of code, and expect other machines to also work properly?
Sigh.
Again, try submitting this upstream (or the original problem), I'm sure they will work with you to resolve the issue.
Yes, and it will take several months, with additional issues popping up. At least longer than we have time. Not because upstream developers are idiots, but because debugging these issues takes enormous time and *exactly* the same hardware.
I understand, it's nothing new with kernel development. Again, work with upstream, we aren't going to take patches that are not submitted there, and at least trying to work through. That does not scale in any way, and is madness (we have learned from prior mistakes in this area.) -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c17
--- Comment #17 from Greg Kroah-Hartman
Ok guys. I'll create a KMP package to solve it for me ;-)
Maybe a "fb_compression=0" module parameter would actually be acceptable upstream?
Yes, that might work out.
There is already "powersave=0" but I guess that is an even bigger hammer for that pesky little screw, isn't it?
Yes, we want powersaving to work :) -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c18
--- Comment #18 from Matthias Hopf
(In reply to comment #15)
Maybe a "fb_compression=0" module parameter would actually be acceptable upstream? Yes, that might work out.
I doubt it, but it would be great.
There is already "powersave=0" but I guess that is an even bigger hammer for that pesky little screw, isn't it? Yes, we want powersaving to work :)
I assume that it does much more than fbc. But I'm not sure. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c19
Uwe Buckesfeld
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c20
--- Comment #20 from Stefan Seyfried
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c21
--- Comment #21 from Stefan Seyfried
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c22
--- Comment #22 from Stephan Kulow
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c23
--- Comment #23 from Stefan Dirsch
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c24
--- Comment #24 from Matthias Hopf
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c25
--- Comment #25 from Uwe Buckesfeld
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c26
--- Comment #26 from Stefan Dirsch
FYI, RC1 fixed it for me.
Anybody else, who can confirm that? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c27
Stefan Dirsch
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c28
Stefan Seyfried
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c29
--- Comment #29 from Stefan Dirsch
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c30
Stephan Kulow
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c31
Stefan Dirsch
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c33
Will Stephenson
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844
http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596844#c34
Stefan Dirsch
participants (1)
-
bugzilla_noreply@novell.com