Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8760aa7fj2.fsf@intel.com>
References: <CAOvwQ4i_VTLg_P-mCTesTvUENYmtix1MfbmFQ=WTC6UUT-DroA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171111200025.hz6zbcqy7uacqd2s@sasha-lappy> <CAOvwQ4hsy1CSKGCwm_Y+j-VGpmXMAF_vhg+WnifphhxVd3ur8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171113210000.ixivmcjy2ianuu7t@sasha-lappy> <87lgj9p7ru.fsf@intel.com>
 <CAOvwQ4iSf=Yic=sw+DEbFqG6xz9C-L4qOCLQqgq=ii9QjTkXmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <87zi7n7t8g.fsf@intel.com> <CAOvwQ4jPKjCXWfDuAX7vzvm=sBjBhWS8hkrQy4ENXgcpO7cbnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8760aa7fj2.fsf@intel.com>
From:   Tuncer Ayaz <tuncer.ayaz@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Nov 2017 07:42:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CAOvwQ4gW=piTZMZ5Qdh=TqijJNfHb2Qp=65Ad4VrUCHAeBQPeg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 4.1 EOL
To:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     alexander.levin@verizon.com,
        "daniel.vetter@intel.com" <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
        "seanpaul@chromium.org" <seanpaul@chromium.org>,
        "airlied@linux.ie" <airlied@linux.ie>,
        "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "stable@vger.kernel.org" <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 11/16/17, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Tuncer Ayaz <tuncer.ayaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't follow why you think it's a different platform and how I
> > might have "more" definitely shown v4.1 to be good, but I'll trust
> > your judgement as a drm dev and not argue :).
>
> You apparently have Sandy Bridge, the referenced reports are about
> Broadwell and Skylake. Even if the symptoms you see are the same,
> the root causes might be wildly different, needing a different fix.

Thanks for taking time to explain and clear my confusion :).

I checked the comments of the other reporter with a Sandy Bridge
system, and they haven't provided a proper trace. Hence, you're
absolutely right.

> I've learned the hard way not to make assumptions without detailed
> information, which in this case I don't have. As in, I don't even
> know for sure if you have Sandy Bridge or not, although it's alluded
> to in your message.

I do (Sandy Bridge), sorry for not being clearer about that.

> From my point of view, you're shouting regression while giving us
> nothing to work with. You need to help us to help you.

Like I said, will do.

From 1584220271826275612@xxx Thu Nov 16 11:03:04 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1583986185558265122
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread