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:== 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@kms_atomic_transition@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
