[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#783437: marked as done (linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64: buggy debian patch to kernel upstream.)

Your message dated Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:09:59 +0100
with message-id <1430132999.4063.161.camel@decadent.org.uk>
and subject line Re: Bug#783437: linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64: buggy debian patch to kernel upstream.
has caused the Debian Bug report #783437,
regarding linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64: buggy debian patch to kernel upstream.
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
783437: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=783437
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64
Version: 3.16.7-ckt9-3~deb8u1
Severity: normal
Not sure what is being changed in the kernel going for jessie, but from what I can tell for two upgrades I had to resort to a newer kernel from debian's experimental.
I have got two systems here that get the same problem, and this relates to the video/Xorg driver issue. Though it may sound remotely unrelated, I think something that debian is doing with upstream is the reason why there is the same video driver issue.
kernel linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64 is problematic (as well as the others of amd64 3.14+ from backports or updates,.. no different result), for nvidia and intel gfx. The driver loads up shown in X log, and there is nothing extra more in detail to know really -- same symptom going all the way back from kernel 3.2 and up. So it's been happening before jessie but the user can manage to find a workaround with it.(though not easily, it's difficult unless one is familiar with it) 

1- Video driver loads
2- Xorg attempts to start, no "edid" information is ever picked up. Graphic server fails to find any "screens" configured because for some reason it knows there is a "video card"(using the desired driver) but doesn't apply to using it at all and X immediately quits. (I don't bother to using fallback drivers as there's no point to using them when accelerated graphics is instead needed)
If the same thing is broken (two machines, one nvidia, the other stocked intel) and I know it has something to do with debian's adjustments to the upstream because when I recompile outside debian's standard repository (backports or stable), the problem is then resolved.
but maybe someone out there knows it better than I can-- something in 3.17 rc5 from experimental is enabling more support for video drivers to be working in general, at least for the two systems here being tested.
What's common between these two machines. One uses the nvidia driver with the 3.17rc5 kernel, the other uses just this same kernel and uses the stocked intel video driver. Both systems then get their video detection resolved as E-did can be picked up by the X server..
I know there's a lot of blame on nvidia drivers, but this also happens with a kernel's stocked intel driver which should be working regardless the problems with nouveau and nvidia. Since there is a problem with even the stocked intel driver in a debian repackaging for Jessie(3.16.0-4), and using 3.17rc5 actually overcomes it, then perhaps this might offer a clue to something wrong with one of the patches going into 3.16. 

so please have a look
thanks

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Sorry, this is not a valid bug report.

Please read:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html
http://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-bugs.html#s9.2

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
I'm not a reverse psychological virus.  Please don't copy me into your sig.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


--- End Message ---
Reply to: