Bug 50829 - [G45]DVI fail to light up after booting
Summary: [G45]DVI fail to light up after booting
Status: CLOSED NOTOURBUG
Alias: None
Product: DRI
Classification: Unclassified
Component: DRM/Intel (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other All
: medium normal
Assignee: Daniel Vetter
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-06-07 06:14 UTC by Guang Yang
Modified: 2017-10-06 14:49 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
i915 platform:
i915 features:


Attachments
booting with dvi dmesg info (123.86 KB, text/plain)
2012-06-07 06:14 UTC, Guang Yang
no flags Details

Description Guang Yang 2012-06-07 06:14:44 UTC
Created attachment 62714 [details]
booting with dvi dmesg info

System Environment:
--------------------------
Platform:        G45
Kernel: (drm-intel-testing)ae6b908db592cf55dbebdb01e39e3b492993344c
Bug detailed description:
-------------------------
   On G45 platform , The DVI can't light up after booting.
   I try this kernel,the bug doesn't occur.
Kernel: (drm-intel-fixes)cb05d8dedefa3066bf5d74ef88c6ca6cf4bd1c87
Comment 1 Chris Wilson 2012-06-07 06:35:29 UTC
Needs to go to bugzilla.kernel.org:

[   32.673322] =============================================
[   32.673349] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
[   32.673378] 3.4.0_drm-intel-testing_20120605+ #1 Not tainted
[   32.673406] ---------------------------------------------
[   32.673433] plymouthd/979 is trying to acquire lock:
[   32.673465]  (&tty->legacy_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff813eba6a>] tty_lock+0x64/0x68
[   32.673503] 
[   32.673503] but task is already holding lock:
[   32.673534]  (&tty->legacy_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff813eba6a>] tty_lock+0x64/0x68
[   32.673571] 
[   32.673571] other info that might help us debug this:
[   32.673602]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[   32.673602] 
[   32.673630]        CPU0
[   32.673644]        ----
[   32.673658]   lock(&tty->legacy_mutex);
[   32.673679]   lock(&tty->legacy_mutex);
[   32.673698] 
[   32.673698]  *** DEADLOCK ***
[   32.673698] 
[   32.673727]  May be due to missing lock nesting notation
[   32.673727] 
[   32.673761] 2 locks held by plymouthd/979:
[   32.673786]  #0:  (tty_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81277075>] tty_release+0x20b/0x4e3
[   32.673827]  #1:  (&tty->legacy_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff813eba6a>] tty_lock+0x64/0x68
[   32.673865] 
[   32.673865] stack backtrace:
[   32.673888] Pid: 979, comm: plymouthd Not tainted 3.4.0_drm-intel-testing_20120605+ #1
[   32.673925] Call Trace:
[   32.673941]  [<ffffffff81074110>] __lock_acquire+0x925/0xd05
[   32.673970]  [<ffffffff810735f8>] ? mark_lock+0x2d/0x220
[   32.673997]  [<ffffffff813eba6a>] ? tty_lock+0x64/0x68
[   32.674004]  [<ffffffff810749fe>] lock_acquire+0x12a/0x150
[   32.674004]  [<ffffffff813eba6a>] ? tty_lock+0x64/0x68
[   32.674004]  [<ffffffff813e985c>] ? __mutex_lock_common+0x332/0x35e
[   32.674004]  [<ffffffff813e9587>] __mutex_lock_common+0x5d/0x35e
[   32.674004]  [<ffffffff813eba6a>] ? tty_lock+0x64/0x68
[   32.674004]  [<ffffffff81074e1c>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x121/0x158
[   32.674004]  [<ffffffff813eba6a>] ? tty_lock+0x64/0x68
[   32.674004]  [<ffffffff813e9983>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3b/0x40
[   32.674004]  [<ffffffff813eba6a>] tty_lock+0x64/0x68
[   32.674004]  [<ffffffff813ebaa4>] tty_lock_pair+0x36/0x3b
[   32.674004]  [<ffffffff81277080>] tty_release+0x216/0x4e3
[   32.674004]  [<ffffffff810ffe89>] fput+0x11c/0x21e
[   32.674004]  [<ffffffff81277e2a>] tty_ioctl+0x3d6/0xb4a
[   32.674004]  [<ffffffff813e4dab>] ? __slab_free+0xe1/0x1b2
[   32.674004]  [<ffffffff81108048>] ? putname+0x2f/0x31
[   32.674004]  [<ffffffff8110d2d0>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x464/0x4a5
[   32.674004]  [<ffffffff810ff6fa>] ? fcheck_files+0xa9/0xe7
[   32.674004]  [<ffffffff8110d362>] sys_ioctl+0x51/0x77
[   32.674004]  [<ffffffff813f2222>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
Comment 2 Guang Yang 2012-07-02 22:56:47 UTC
I can't reproduce this issue with the lastest kernel.
Comment 3 Elizabeth 2017-10-06 14:49:47 UTC
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.