On 9/21/2020 13:36, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
On 9/21/2020 12:22 PM, John Harrison wrote:
On 9/16/2020 23:48, Petri Latvala wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 06:22:45PM -0700, John Harrison wrote:
Hello,
The failures below all appear to be because the new GuC firmware
was not
found on the test system.
My understanding is that all we need to do to get the CI system to
update
with new firmwares is to push the firmware to a branch on the FDO
drm-firmware repo and then send a pull request to this mailing
list. That
was done yesterday.
That pull request used an ssh:// url though. Can you send it again
with a git:// url? I suppose that's a plausible reason why I don't see
the binaries in CI's deploy dir.
Hello,
We reset the pull request with a git:// URL as requested. I even gave
it a full weekend to propagate through. However, I am still getting
missing firmware failures after posting a new patch set.
John.
You sure you're looking at the correct logs? AFAICS BAT on the new
patches passed (https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/81906/) and I
see the correct GuC being loaded in the logs.
e.g.
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_18542/fi-icl-u2/boot0.txt:
<6>[ 9.283866] i915 0000:00:02.0: [drm] GuC firmware
i915/icl_guc_49.0.1.bin version 49.0 submission:disabled
Daniele
Grrr. When I downloaded the dmesg.txt it saved is as dmesg.txt.1. So
yes, I was looking at a stale log :(.
I guess the other question is are we supposed to be supporting HuC by
default on KBL? It is running the gem_huc_copy test but we have only
enabled GuC/HuC loading on Gen11+ platforms.
John.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
