[06:48] <alkisg> Hi, which kernel is 19.10 mostly likely going to ship with? We want to prepare some out-of-tree drivers before release...
[06:54] <tjaalton> alkisg: 5.3 is planned
[06:54] <alkisg> Thank you tjaalton :)
[07:36] <lotuspsychje> hey alkisg tjaalton 
[07:36] <alkisg> Heya lotuspsychje
[07:37] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: i been able to grab a dmesg on that intel flickering with a kernel param Bug #1838644
[07:37] <tjaalton> lotuspsychje: hi, tested -12 yet?
[07:38] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: no, did you own build or from mainline? can you link plz?
[07:38] <tjaalton> same link
[07:38] <tjaalton> https://aaltoset.kapsi.fi/bisect/
[07:38] <lotuspsychje> ok lets test
[07:39] <tjaalton> fifo underruns would match the expected symptom
[07:41] <tjaalton> I'm going to be afk for a bit.. but will check once back
[07:42] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: Rootbox 5.0.0-rc1 #12 working : )
[07:52] <tjaalton> really?
[07:52] <tjaalton> it's basically 5.0-rc1
[07:52] <tjaalton> now you can bisect using mainline rc builds while I'm gone
[07:53] <tjaalton> back in 1,5h or so
[07:53] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: wich versions
[07:53] <tjaalton> 5.0-rcN
[07:53] <lotuspsychje> can you link plz
[07:53] <tjaalton> same mainline repo https://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline
[07:53] <lotuspsychje> tnx
[07:55] <lotuspsychje> rc1==>rc8 right
[07:58] <apw> lotuspsychje, obviously you should bisect it, -rc4 first or whatever
[07:59] <lotuspsychje> apw: sorry im not really a dev, bisect means?
[07:59] <apw> not a technical term, it is a search algorithm
[07:59] <apw> divide-and-conquor
[08:00] <lotuspsychje> can you explain a bit plz?
[08:00] <apw> if you think the answer is between 1 and 10, and you can tell if your guess is too low
[08:00] <apw> you would try 5
[08:00] <apw> if the guess was too low you try 7.5, too high 2.5
[08:00] <apw> and so on
[08:00] <lotuspsychje> apw: we are looking for the bottleneck kernel version and guess into the middle?
[08:00] <apw> you are doing the equivalent here
[08:00] <apw> so always take a half way, eliminating half
[08:02] <apw> for you you know 5.0-rc1 is good i think, and a 5.0 ubuntu kernel is bad
[08:04] <apw> so likely i would test v5.0 itself next, to eliminate the ubuntu delta
[08:04] <apw> then if that 5.0 fails (and you may have tested that already), v5.0-rc4 or something
[08:04] <lotuspsychje> apw: so lets say i test rc5, how would i know if upper or lower is bad/good?
[08:07] <apw> lotuspsychje, you know which is good, you are testing for something, like display issues right ?
[08:07] <apw> so you said -rc0 does not have 'the problem' and ubuntu has 'the problem'
[08:07] <lotuspsychje> apw: correct, intel gpu gives flickering at desktop boot
[08:08] <TJ-> lotuspsychje: imagine you've got (to make it easy) 12 commits between the known-bad and later known-good. A bisect will build #6 first. if you report that works (good) it'll then build #3, if you report that bad, it'll then build #5, if that is good it'll build #4, if that is good you know it contains the fix. if it is bad, you know #5 contained the fix
[08:09] <lotuspsychje> right
[08:09] <apw> that is your test to say which way to go
[08:09] <apw> if 5.0-final is good then we know ubuntu delta is faulty
[08:10] <apw> if 5.0-final is bad we know the breaking commit is before 5.0 so try something later than good and before bad
[08:11] <lotuspsychje> every kernel test i should update my bug with?
[08:26] <lotuspsychje> apw TJ- 5.0.0-050000rc4-generic is bad
[08:26] <RikMills> lotuspsychje: someone in #kubuntu reported same today: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/JcrbHxq2hn/
[08:26] <RikMills> sadly they have gone
[08:26] <lotuspsychje> RikMills: can you check my bug if its related to the new KDE guy that replyed?  Bug #1838644
[08:27] <RikMills> lotuspsychje: no, as I said, they left the channel before I looked. I only have the log
[08:28] <RikMills> I was just FYI
[08:28] <apw> lotuspsychje, 
[08:28] <apw> lotuspsychje, lower then 
[08:28] <lotuspsychje> apw: ok
[08:28] <apw> always closing the gap between good and bad
[08:29] <TJ-> lotuspsychje: for what it is worth I examined the Ubuntu cherry-picked patches since 5.0.0-18.19 I think it was, comparing them with where they came from in the later kernel, and I got an indication a related patch that should have been cherry-picked was missing, but I ran out of time in analysing it in more detail to figure out which
[08:30] <lotuspsychje> RikMills: did you read #12 on my bug?
[08:30] <lotuspsychje> thats also a carl
[08:31] <RikMills> lotuspsychje: oh, I sees. can't confirm, but seems likely
[08:32] <lotuspsychje> RikMills: ok tnx for the notice
[08:54] <lotuspsychje> apw: rc1 rc2 rc3 rc4 are bad
[08:54] <lotuspsychje> now what?
[08:55] <apw> lotuspsychje, huh ... -rc1 was reported good earlier in this channel, so now i am confused
[08:55] <apw> lotuspsychje, or more specifically the thing you tested which was labelled 'basically' -rc1 by tjaalton was good
[08:55] <lotuspsychje> apw: that was an own built one version from tjaalton #12
[08:56] <apw> lotuspsychje, can you re-test that one to confirm it still works; if so that say -rc1..<tjaalton-12> has the fix
[08:56] <lotuspsychje> sure
[08:58] <lotuspsychje> Linux Rootbox 5.0.0-rc1 #12 SMP Thu Aug 1 19:38:58 EEST 2019 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux build from tjaalton confirmed still working
[08:59] <apw> tjaalton, ^ it seems my mainline 5.0-rc1 is bad and that is good ... so we need to know how they differ
[08:59] <apw> lotuspsychje, we need to t-jaalton now to know what to try, i assume he will be around later
[09:00] <lotuspsychje> allright, tnx for your time apw 
[09:00] <apw> lotuspsychje, np
[09:37] <tjaalton> lotuspsychje: verify that you had -modules installed for the mainline builds, if not then i915.ko isn't available and you can't hit the bug
[09:37] <tjaalton> you can also check with 'lsmod| grep i915'
[09:59] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: yeah i installed headers, modules and image on all tests
[10:01] <tjaalton> weird
[10:02] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: did you check the dmesg with drm.debug=0x1e log_buf_len=4M maybe some clues there?
[10:02] <tjaalton> it just verifies the bug
[10:02] <lotuspsychje> ok
[10:04] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: that carl guy from my bug, also has intel 620 graphics like me
[10:04] <lotuspsychje> on my NUC its intel 650 and there it doesnt happen
[10:05] <tjaalton> it's not the gpu but the panel
[10:05] <lotuspsychje> ah
[10:05] <tjaalton> your nuc doesn't have one
[10:05] <lotuspsychje> correct
[10:05] <tjaalton> is it a 4k unit?
[10:05] <tjaalton> resolution
[10:06] <lotuspsychje> Resolution: 1920x1080@60.01hz
[10:06] <tjaalton> ok
[10:23] <tjaalton> so I don't know what to do now
[10:24] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: im currently browsing older bugs on underrun errors
[10:25] <lotuspsychje> so far i didnt have customers calling for issues yet
[10:26] <tjaalton> I wonder if your testing of my -12 was just incomplete, meaning that maybe it'd start to flicker later or something
[10:27] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: from my testing, i can reproduce pretty similar, aka, few seconds i see desktop, then the flickering starts heavy, cant do anything anymore in between
[10:28] <tjaalton> maybe double check if you have i915 loaded with -12
[10:29] <lotuspsychje> i am https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/4W83KkgT6M/
[10:30] <tjaalton> yep
[10:31] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: im browsing this currently, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1550779
[10:32] <lotuspsychje> as they also mentioning flickering
[10:40] <lotuspsychje> and jeremy31 found just this: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1824216
[10:41] <tjaalton> that was a revert of a commit 
[10:45] <tjaalton> a regression in 5.0.x stable branch
[11:01] <tjaalton> lotuspsychje: could you post dmesg without debug output from both -12 and mainline 5.0-rc1 somewhere..
[11:02] <tjaalton> trying to search for hints why the other fails while the other doesn't
[11:02] <lotuspsychje> on it
[11:04] <tjaalton> btw, check for bios updates
[11:18] <lotuspsychje> RC1: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/QFJY3jNSHb/
[11:19] <lotuspsychje> #12: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/hTXK4KmgVS/
[11:20] <tjaalton> thanks, I'll have a look..
[11:21] <lotuspsychje> ty tjaalton 
[11:23] <lotuspsychje> another fact i just found out, pressing backlight Fn+ F8/F9 brightness makes it flicker more
[12:04] <tjaalton> they look mostly the same, my kernel has a slimmer config but all the framebuffer/drm things look the same on both
[12:05] <apw> tjaalton, so perhaps a timing issue?  the extra weight changing the timing ?
[12:06] <apw> could you perhaps make your kernel using the other config and see?
[12:17] <tjaalton> sure
[13:14] <tjaalton> lotuspsychje: -13 is built, using identical config as mainline rc1
[13:15] <lotuspsychje> on it tjaalton 
[13:18] <tjaalton> apw: I'm using 'make bindeb-pkg' btw, and gcc 7.4.0 from bionic. the mainline builds are built on a newer distro?
[13:18] <apw> likely so yes
[13:18] <apw> prolly against disco
[13:19]  * apw realises he could use the version data to produce multiple, but uggg
[13:21] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: its flickering https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/B3WQDxfwdK/
[13:22] <tjaalton> phew
[13:24] <lotuspsychje> is that a good phew?
[13:24] <tjaalton> yes
[13:24] <lotuspsychje> yay
[13:25] <tjaalton> at least we have a baseline now...
[13:25] <lotuspsychje> well done tjaalton ; )
[13:26] <tjaalton> ngh, looking at the config diff makes me sad
[13:26] <tjaalton> let's just bisect
[13:28] <tjaalton> I'll build drm-intel-next-2019-02-02 now, which was what you tested as -11 with the old config
[13:28] <lotuspsychje> okay
[13:40] <tjaalton> lotuspsychje: -14 is uploaded
[13:40] <lotuspsychje> lets test
[13:43] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: Linux Rootbox 5.0.0-rc1 #14 SMP Fri Aug 2 16:28:16 EEST 2019 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
[13:44] <lotuspsychje>  working
[13:46] <tjaalton> great
[13:46] <tjaalton> now the actual bisecting can start..
[13:47] <lotuspsychje> good luck
[13:47] <tjaalton> you're still testing them :P
[13:48] <lotuspsychje> apreciating the work you doing mate, its the least i can do
[13:48] <tjaalton> my part is just mechanics, building kernels
[13:48] <tjaalton> takes maybe 5min to build
[13:49] <lotuspsychje> sure, coffee to the rescue :p
[13:58] <tjaalton> beer
[13:58] <lotuspsychje> lol
[14:02] <tjaalton> ok it took 15min, -15 is available
[14:02] <lotuspsychje> lets fire it up
[14:04] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: 5.0.0-rc1+ boot this now?
[14:04] <tjaalton> yes
[14:05] <lotuspsychje> allrighty
[14:08] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: + is flickering
[14:08] <tjaalton> cool
[14:21] <tjaalton> lotuspsychje: -16 done
[14:21] <lotuspsychje> okay tnx
[14:28] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: 16 flickering
[14:28] <tjaalton> great
[14:28] <lotuspsychje> : )
[14:30] <tjaalton> the actual compile takes a minute, then building the package takes 10
[14:30] <lotuspsychje> dont worry mate, im used to idle
[14:35] <tjaalton> lotuspsychje: -17 uploaded
[14:36] <lotuspsychje> allrighty!
[14:39] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: Linux Rootbox 5.0.0-rc1+ #17 working!
[14:39] <tjaalton> aha
[14:48] <tjaalton> lotuspsychje: -18 up
[14:48] <lotuspsychje> okay
[14:52] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: -18 flickering
[14:53] <tjaalton> got it
[14:57] <tjaalton> meanwhile, you could try booting 18 with 'i915.fastboot=1'
[14:57] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: im always installing ubuntu in legacy, will that param have effect?
[14:58] <tjaalton> dunno
[14:58] <lotuspsychje> ok lets try
[14:59] <tjaalton> could be it's "drm/i915: Try to sanitize bogus DPLL state left over by broken SNB BIOSen" but we have that backported in 5.0 already
[14:59] <tjaalton> but if bisect points to it, then it needs some other commit(s) to work...
[15:00] <tjaalton> -19 uploading
[15:00] <lotuspsychje> want me to test 18 with param first?
[15:01] <tjaalton> either way
[15:01] <tjaalton> hmm maybe yes, if this replaces 18
[15:03] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: fastboot trick on -18 worked
[15:03] <tjaalton> ha
[15:04] <tjaalton> a true head-scratcher...
[15:05] <tjaalton> lotuspsychje: and no fifo underruns in dmesg?
[15:07] <lotuspsychje> https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/4GN5kzzJCq/
[15:08] <tjaalton> that would be a no then
[15:10] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: try -19 now?
[15:10] <tjaalton> lotuspsychje: so, boot the distro kernel with fastboot
[15:10] <tjaalton> -19 should be bad
[15:10] <lotuspsychje> 5.0.0.23 with fastbbot right?
[15:10] <lotuspsychje> boot
[15:10] <tjaalton> yep
[15:11] <lotuspsychje> kk
[15:11] <tjaalton> and then maybe boot 5.1 mainline with fastboot=0
[15:12] <tjaalton> to rule this out
[15:13] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: working! 5.0.0-23-generic #24~18.04.1-Ubuntu
[15:13] <tjaalton> now try suspend&resume :)
[15:16] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: suspend makes it flicker
[15:16] <tjaalton> bingo
[15:17] <lotuspsychje> \o/
[15:18] <tjaalton> so, boot 5.1 with fastboot=0
[15:18] <tjaalton> maybe add it to /etc/default/grub so that it's always there
[15:19] <tjaalton> GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX
[15:19] <lotuspsychje> yeah im doing it that way
[15:19] <tjaalton> cool
[15:20] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: i got a 5.1.0 and 5.1.21
[15:20] <tjaalton> boot .21
[15:20] <lotuspsychje> allrighty
[15:24] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: i915.fastboot=0 on 5.1.21 flickering
[15:24] <tjaalton> marvellous
[15:25] <tjaalton> apw: recent drm-tip builds have failed
[15:25] <tjaalton> 07-30 is the latest
[15:26] <tjaalton> drm-next too
[15:26] <tjaalton> um, drm-intel-next that is
[15:26] <tjaalton> lotuspsychje: install this https://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/drm-intel-nightly/2019-07-30/
[15:27] <lotuspsychje> allrighty
[15:29] <tjaalton> if it's broken, then all we can do is wait for the guy at intel responsible for this to return from vacation :P
[15:29] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: boot with fastboot=0 ?
[15:29] <tjaalton> or bisect where it broke, but I'd say reverting something at this point would risk breaking it for others
[15:29] <tjaalton> yes
[15:30] <lotuspsychje> cross your fingerz
[15:32] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: 5.3 with fastboot=0 working
[15:32] <lotuspsychje> try suspend?
[15:32] <tjaalton> sure
[15:33] <tjaalton> but that sounds promising
[15:33] <lotuspsychje> not flickering
[15:33] <tjaalton> try latest 5.3-rc then
[15:34] <lotuspsychje> rc2?
[15:34] <tjaalton> yes
[15:39] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: 5.3.0-050300rc2-generic working, but it doesnt wanna suspend
[15:40] <tjaalton> ok, good. now test 5.2.5
[15:40] <lotuspsychje> ok
[15:46] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: 5.2.5 flickering
[15:46] <tjaalton> okay
[15:47] <tjaalton> lotuspsychje: try this one https://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/drm-intel-next/2019-06-20/
[15:48] <lotuspsychje> installing
[15:49] <tjaalton> lotuspsychje: if that works, try the one before that
[15:49] <tjaalton> on the parent dir
[15:49] <tjaalton> and so on
[15:51] <lotuspsychje> okay
[15:51] <tjaalton> once we have known good/bad, it's time for another bisect..
[15:52] <tjaalton> but I'm about to hop on a swimming pool :P
[15:54] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: 2019-06-20/ 5.2.0 flickering
[15:55] <tjaalton> oh
[15:59] <tjaalton> only a handful of commits between that and 5.3-rc2
[16:04] <tjaalton> but a new build will take closer to an hour now
[16:04] <lotuspsychje> allrighty, lets take a break :p
[16:04] <tjaalton> 19 commits of which two are suspicious
[16:04] <tjaalton> but both seem to fix commits not in 5.0 :/
[16:05] <tjaalton> ok, swim/beer break
[16:50] <tjaalton> lotuspsychje: -20 uploaded
[16:50] <tjaalton> 5.2.0-rc4+
[17:40] <tjaalton> lotuspsychje: ping?
[17:43] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: ok lemme test
[17:53] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: 5.2.0 rc4 flickering
[17:55] <tjaalton> alright
[18:08] <tjaalton> building the next one, seems to take a while
[18:08] <lotuspsychje> okay tnx
[18:09] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: i need to still test them all with fastboot=0 right?
[18:09] <tjaalton> yes
[18:09] <lotuspsychje> kk
[18:45] <tjaalton> lotuspsychje: -21 finally uploaded
[18:46] <lotuspsychje> allrighty!
[18:51] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: -21 also flickering
[18:53] <tjaalton> thanks
[18:53] <tjaalton> building
[18:53] <lotuspsychje> cool
[19:41] <tjaalton> lotuspsychje: -22 uploaded
[19:41] <lotuspsychje> okay
[19:45] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: -22 also flickering
[19:46] <tjaalton> okie
[19:47] <lotuspsychje> tjaalton: was the last one for today for me, ill continue tomorrowz ok
[19:47] <tjaalton> ok
[19:48] <tjaalton> I'll push 23 once it's ready, you'll find it in the same place
[19:48] <lotuspsychje> allrighty!
[19:48] <lotuspsychje> ill test when i wake
[19:53] <tjaalton> thanks
[21:28] <jeremy31> I just tried the 5.0.0-23 kernel on my laptop with the Intel UHD 620 graphics and have no flicker