FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu Kernel Team

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-05-2010, 05:56 PM
Andy Whitcroft
 
Default Kernel v2.6.33 drm update

After much discussion within the Ubuntu Kernel team, the Ubuntu X team,
and with the various Graphics upstreams it has become clear that the
2.6.32 drm stack is not of sufficient quality to form a good basis for a
LTS release. 2.6.32 does not contain Nouveau so we are already committed
to a backport of that for KMS there. Upstream is essentially saying
ATI Radeon KMS support in 2.6.32 is so bad that the recommendation is to
disable it globally. Finally i915 does not support the latest chipsets
well, and backports are already extremely painful; chipsets which are
slated to become prevalent over the next few months.

The recommendation from upstream is to use the 2.6.33 drm stack if we
desire KMS to be enabled generally, a clear goal for Lucid. Following a
review it does appear that the drm subsystem is sufficiently self contained
that it is possible to backport just that subsystem into our 2.6.32 tree.
This gives us a hybrid kernel gaining the long-term stable support backing
for the main kernel (a major bonus as this has to be supported for 5
years on servers) while gaining the more stable 2.6.33 graphics support
for desktop use. Additionally upstream is essentially rejecting 2.6.32
as a supportable stack, and is committing to longer support for 2.6.33
as their stable version. We are therefore planning to upload a hybrid
2.6.32 kernel containing the 2.6.33 drm backported.

From an Ubuntu stable maintenance standpoint we should be able to track a
hybrid of 2.6.33.y for drm and 2.6.32.y for the remainder of the kernel and
due to the separation that drm enjoys we hope to avoid major conflicts.
Plug gaining the longest possible support from upstream for each part.
This will also remove the requirement to install an LBM package to get
Nouveau cleaning up the install significantly. It seems likely that
Debian and other distros will be following a similar hybrid approach
allowing us to share the maintenance burden.

-apw

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 03-05-2010, 08:20 PM
Peter Clifton
 
Default Kernel v2.6.33 drm update

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 18:56 +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:

> From an Ubuntu stable maintenance standpoint we should be able to track a
> hybrid of 2.6.33.y for drm and 2.6.32.y for the remainder of the kernel and
> due to the separation that drm enjoys we hope to avoid major conflicts.
> Plug gaining the longest possible support from upstream for each part.
> This will also remove the requirement to install an LBM package to get
> Nouveau cleaning up the install significantly. It seems likely that
> Debian and other distros will be following a similar hybrid approach
> allowing us to share the maintenance burden.

Excellent news.

I've been running such a stack for some time now, and it is pretty
stable. i965 shows some glyph corruption after a hibernate / resume
though, but suspend is very solid.

Regards,

--
Peter Clifton

Electrical Engineering Division,
Engineering Department,
University of Cambridge,
9, JJ Thomson Avenue,
Cambridge
CB3 0FA

Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!)


--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 03-05-2010, 08:25 PM
Bryce Harrington
 
Default Kernel v2.6.33 drm update

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 09:20:52PM +0000, Peter Clifton wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 18:56 +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>
> > From an Ubuntu stable maintenance standpoint we should be able to track a
> > hybrid of 2.6.33.y for drm and 2.6.32.y for the remainder of the kernel and
> > due to the separation that drm enjoys we hope to avoid major conflicts.
> > Plug gaining the longest possible support from upstream for each part.
> > This will also remove the requirement to install an LBM package to get
> > Nouveau cleaning up the install significantly. It seems likely that
> > Debian and other distros will be following a similar hybrid approach
> > allowing us to share the maintenance burden.
>
> Excellent news.
>
> I've been running such a stack for some time now, and it is pretty
> stable. i965 shows some glyph corruption after a hibernate / resume
> though, but suspend is very solid.

Thanks for the feedback Peter. Do you have a bug report open in lp or
upstream on the glyph corruption issue? Sounds worth tracking.

Bryce

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 03-05-2010, 09:38 PM
Bryce Harrington
 
Default Kernel v2.6.33 drm update

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:56:11PM +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> We are therefore planning to upload a hybrid
> 2.6.32 kernel containing the 2.6.33 drm backported.

Btw, for bug report fiddling purposes, is there a reliable way to detect
the drm version installed? The drm version does not show up in uname -a
of course, and `dmesg|grep drm|grep 2.6.33` returns nothing (at least,
on nouveau).

(Basically I want a way to automatically distinguish between bug reports
that were tested with the new 2.6.33 drm vs those that won't, so we can
prioritize our attentions accordingly.)

Bryce

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 03-05-2010, 09:50 PM
Chase Douglas
 
Default Kernel v2.6.33 drm update

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 14:38 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:56:11PM +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > We are therefore planning to upload a hybrid
> > 2.6.32 kernel containing the 2.6.33 drm backported.
>
> Btw, for bug report fiddling purposes, is there a reliable way to detect
> the drm version installed? The drm version does not show up in uname -a
> of course, and `dmesg|grep drm|grep 2.6.33` returns nothing (at least,
> on nouveau).
>
> (Basically I want a way to automatically distinguish between bug reports
> that were tested with the new 2.6.33 drm vs those that won't, so we can
> prioritize our attentions accordingly.)

Can you use the kernel release version? I'm guessing the -16.23 release
has the backported drm stack. In that case, anything before -16.23
is .32 drm and anything later is .33 drm.

-- Chase


--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 03-05-2010, 09:54 PM
Timo Aaltonen
 
Default Kernel v2.6.33 drm update

On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Bryce Harrington wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:56:11PM +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>> We are therefore planning to upload a hybrid
>> 2.6.32 kernel containing the 2.6.33 drm backported.
>
> Btw, for bug report fiddling purposes, is there a reliable way to detect
> the drm version installed? The drm version does not show up in uname -a
> of course, and `dmesg|grep drm|grep 2.6.33` returns nothing (at least,
> on nouveau).
>
> (Basically I want a way to automatically distinguish between bug reports
> that were tested with the new 2.6.33 drm vs those that won't, so we can
> prioritize our attentions accordingly.)

Isn't the kernel abi enough for that? -16 has the backport, anything
before that doesn't.

--
Timo Aaltonen
Systems Specialist
IT Services, Aalto University School of Science and Technology

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 03-05-2010, 10:32 PM
"Luis R. Rodriguez"
 
Default Kernel v2.6.33 drm update

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Timo Aaltonen <tjaalton@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Bryce Harrington wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:56:11PM +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>>> We are therefore planning to upload a hybrid
>>> 2.6.32 kernel containing the 2.6.33 drm backported.
>>
>> Btw, for bug report fiddling purposes, is there a reliable way to detect
>> the drm version installed? *The drm version does not show up in uname -a
>> of course, and `dmesg|grep drm|grep 2.6.33` returns nothing (at least,
>> on nouveau).
>>
>> (Basically I want a way to automatically distinguish between bug reports
>> that were tested with the new 2.6.33 drm vs those that won't, so we can
>> prioritize our attentions accordingly.)
>
> Isn't the kernel abi enough for that? -16 has the backport, anything
> before that doesn't.

Right but its still good to know a backport from which 2.6.33.y

Luis

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 03-06-2010, 11:47 AM
Andy Whitcroft
 
Default Kernel v2.6.33 drm update

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:32:05PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Timo Aaltonen <tjaalton@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:56:11PM +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> >>> We are therefore planning to upload a hybrid
> >>> 2.6.32 kernel containing the 2.6.33 drm backported.
> >>
> >> Btw, for bug report fiddling purposes, is there a reliable way to detect
> >> the drm version installed? *The drm version does not show up in uname -a
> >> of course, and `dmesg|grep drm|grep 2.6.33` returns nothing (at least,
> >> on nouveau).
> >>
> >> (Basically I want a way to automatically distinguish between bug reports
> >> that were tested with the new 2.6.33 drm vs those that won't, so we can
> >> prioritize our attentions accordingly.)
> >
> > Isn't the kernel abi enough for that? -16 has the backport, anything
> > before that doesn't.
>
> Right but its still good to know a backport from which 2.6.33.y

Fair point. Right now we have v2.6.33 straight. But I do see how we
might want some finer grain record of the version. I will look at where
we can expose that.

-apw

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 03-06-2010, 06:40 PM
"Luis R. Rodriguez"
 
Default Kernel v2.6.33 drm update

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:47 AM, Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:32:05PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Timo Aaltonen <tjaalton@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Bryce Harrington wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:56:11PM +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>> >>> We are therefore planning to upload a hybrid
>> >>> 2.6.32 kernel containing the 2.6.33 drm backported.
>> >>
>> >> Btw, for bug report fiddling purposes, is there a reliable way to detect
>> >> the drm version installed? *The drm version does not show up in uname -a
>> >> of course, and `dmesg|grep drm|grep 2.6.33` returns nothing (at least,
>> >> on nouveau).
>> >>
>> >> (Basically I want a way to automatically distinguish between bug reports
>> >> that were tested with the new 2.6.33 drm vs those that won't, so we can
>> >> prioritize our attentions accordingly.)
>> >
>> > Isn't the kernel abi enough for that? -16 has the backport, anything
>> > before that doesn't.
>>
>> Right but its still good to know a backport from which 2.6.33.y
>
> Fair point. *Right now we have v2.6.33 straight. *But I do see how we
> might want some finer grain record of the version. *I will look at where
> we can expose that.

A printk perhaps?

Luis

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 03-07-2010, 08:58 PM
Christopher James Halse Rogers
 
Default Kernel v2.6.33 drm update

On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 12:47 +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:32:05PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Timo Aaltonen <tjaalton@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:56:11PM +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > >>> We are therefore planning to upload a hybrid
> > >>> 2.6.32 kernel containing the 2.6.33 drm backported.
> > >>
> > >> Btw, for bug report fiddling purposes, is there a reliable way to detect
> > >> the drm version installed? The drm version does not show up in uname -a
> > >> of course, and `dmesg|grep drm|grep 2.6.33` returns nothing (at least,
> > >> on nouveau).
> > >>
> > >> (Basically I want a way to automatically distinguish between bug reports
> > >> that were tested with the new 2.6.33 drm vs those that won't, so we can
> > >> prioritize our attentions accordingly.)
> > >
> > > Isn't the kernel abi enough for that? -16 has the backport, anything
> > > before that doesn't.
> >
> > Right but its still good to know a backport from which 2.6.33.y
>
> Fair point. Right now we have v2.6.33 straight. But I do see how we
> might want some finer grain record of the version. I will look at where
> we can expose that.

For prior art, Nouveau's upstream build captures the output of
git-describe and displays it on module load. Feeding the git
information into the kernel build & getting the other drm drivers to
display the same information shouldn't be too hard.
--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:33 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org