On 1/22/2020 18:24, Patchwork wrote:
== Series Details ==
Series: drm/i915/guc: Update to GuC FW v40 (rev3)
URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/72032/
State : failure
== Summary ==
CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_7786_full -> Patchwork_16198_full
====================================================
Summary
-------
**FAILURE**
Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_16198_full absolutely need to
be
verified manually.
If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
introduced in Patchwork_16198_full, please notify your bug team to allow them
to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.
Possible new issues
-------------------
Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in
Patchwork_16198_full:
### IGT changes ###
#### Possible regressions ####
* igt@kms_atomic_transition@5x-modeset-transitions-fencing:
- shard-tglb: NOTRUN -> [SKIP][1]
[1]:
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_16198/shard-tglb8/igt@[email protected]
According to the log, this test failed because it ran on a device that
only had one display device attached and not the five required by the test:
IGT-Version: 1.24-g5cf58d947 (x86_64) (Linux: 5.5.0-rc7-CI-Patchwork_16198+
x86_64)
Starting subtest: 5x-modeset-transitions-fencing
Test requirement not met in function run_modeset_transition, file
../tests/kms_atomic_transition.c:887:
Test requirement: num_outputs >= requested_outputs
Should have at least 5 outputs, found 1
Subtest 5x-modeset-transitions-fencing: SKIP (0.000s)
I'm not sure how that could be called a regression in the GuC FW patch.
I also don't see any reason why the test would previously have been a
'NOTRUN' and now is being attempted. Changing the GuC FW should not
affect which KMS tests do or do not get run!
I don't have a system with five display devices so I can't actually run
the test myself either. However, I do not see how this could be affected
by changes to the GuC. Especially when the GuC is only being used for
HuC authentication.
So I think this definitely counts as an issue with CI not this patch.
John.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
