| Summary: | [BYT Bisected]System booting up with call trace in dmesg | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | DRI | Reporter: | Guo Jinxian <jinxianx.guo> | ||||||||
| Component: | DRM/Intel | Assignee: | Intel GFX Bugs mailing list <intel-gfx-bugs> | ||||||||
| Status: | CLOSED FIXED | QA Contact: | Intel GFX Bugs mailing list <intel-gfx-bugs> | ||||||||
| Severity: | normal | ||||||||||
| Priority: | medium | CC: | intel-gfx-bugs | ||||||||
| Version: | XOrg git | ||||||||||
| Hardware: | Other | ||||||||||
| OS: | All | ||||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||||
| i915 platform: | i915 features: | ||||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||
|
Description
Guo Jinxian
2013-11-25 09:21:04 UTC
Is this a regression? If so, can you please try to bisect it? Do you see this on any other platforms, specifically other gen7 machines like ivb/hsw? (In reply to comment #1) > Is this a regression? If so, can you please try to bisect it? > > Do you see this on any other platforms, specifically other gen7 machines > like ivb/hsw? Yes, it a regression bug. We found this bug on -testing(f400ddc64ab74ae754896138f1aacd4b4ad62def), We don't meet this bug on other machines. We had bisect it, this commit(2daabd7848b89afddd93be616f1be5639ea78822) is the first bad point. Oh, I din't see that the mention commit is the bisected regression point. Please make this clearer next time around when writing your initial report. The bisect commit is rather strange since it changes code that shouldn't run on our platform at all (and even less should be able to affect i915). Have you checked the bisect by reverting the offending commit? If that doesn't confirm the bisect please double-check that it's done correct. (In reply to comment #3) > Oh, I din't see that the mention commit is the bisected regression point. > Please make this clearer next time around when writing your initial report. > > The bisect commit is rather strange since it changes code that shouldn't run > on our platform at all (and even less should be able to affect i915). Have > you checked the bisect by reverting the offending commit? > > If that doesn't confirm the bisect please double-check that it's done > correct. Revert the commit 2daabd7848b89afddd93be616f1be5639ea78822 base on commit fec8cba306f974f3a4491176994de5d821273643, this bug unable to reproduce. thanks. I'm totally baffled. Can you please attach the dmesg with the calltrace you get when booting into the first bad commit, i.e. 2daabd7848b89afddd93be616f1be5639ea78822 Created attachment 89982 [details]
dmesg
(In reply to comment #5) > I'm totally baffled. Can you please attach the dmesg with the calltrace you > get when booting into the first bad commit, i.e. > 2daabd7848b89afddd93be616f1be5639ea78822 Uploaded dmesg in attachment, thanks. Created attachment 89983 [details] [review] fix pm init ordering Please test the attached patch. (In reply to comment #8) > Created attachment 89983 [details] [review] [review] > fix pm init ordering > > Please test the attached patch. The bug unable to reproduce on commit 0d1430a3f4b7cfd8779b78740a4182321f3ca7f3 with the attached patch. Thanks. The patch has been merged and Guo confirmed that he couldn't see the warning anymore with it. Closing. Checked on latest -nightly(f0404eaa3ab8607058a3581e0d691d35ca4b79bd), this bug had fixed, thanks. Closing old verified. |
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.