Hi, https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/144441/ - Re-reported. i915.CI.BAT - Re-reported. Thanks, Ravali. -----Original Message----- From: I915-ci-infra <i915-ci-infra-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Gustavo Sousa Sent: 12 March 2025 20:09 To: I915-ci-infra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: ✗ i915.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915/xe3lpd: Update bandwidth parameters (rev5) Quoting Patchwork (2025-03-11 15:45:55-03:00) >== Series Details == > >Series: drm/i915/xe3lpd: Update bandwidth parameters (rev5) >URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/144441/ >State : failure > >== Summary == > >CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_16263 -> Patchwork_144441v5 >==================================================== > >Summary >------- > > **FAILURE** > > Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_144441v5 absolutely > need to be verified manually. > > If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes > introduced in Patchwork_144441v5, please notify your bug team > (I915-ci-infra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) to allow them to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI. > > External URL: > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_144441v5/index.html > >Participating hosts (43 -> 43) >------------------------------ > > Additional (1): bat-arlh-2 > Missing (1): fi-snb-2520m > >Possible new issues >------------------- > > Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in Patchwork_144441v5: > >### IGT changes ### > >#### Possible regressions #### Hi, CI Team. The errors below are not related to my series. Could you please re-report? Also, please see my comments below. > > * igt@i915_pm_rpm@module-reload: > - bat-adls-6: [PASS][1] -> [FAIL][2] > [1]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_16263/bat-adls-6/igt@i915_pm_rpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [2]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_144441v5/bat-adls-6/igt@i915_pm_rpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > - bat-rpls-4: [PASS][3] -> [FAIL][4] > [3]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_16263/bat-rpls-4/igt@i915_pm_rpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [4]: > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_144441v5/bat-rpls-4 > /igt@i915_pm_rpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This maps to https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/i915/kernel/-/issues/13901. > > * igt@kms_addfb_basic@too-high: > - fi-kbl-8809g: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][5] +3 other tests fail > [5]: > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_144441v5/fi-kbl-880 > 9g/igt@kms_addfb_basic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx I see amdgpu in the dmesg out. How come? > > * igt@kms_flip@basic-flip-vs-wf_vblank: > - bat-apl-1: [PASS][6] -> [DMESG-WARN][7] +1 other test dmesg-warn > [6]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_16263/bat-apl-1/igt@kms_flip@basic-flip-vs-wf_vblank.html > [7]: > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_144441v5/bat-apl-1/ > igt@kms_flip@basic-flip-vs-wf_vblank.html I'm not familiar with LSPCON, but, at a quick glance on where lspcon functions are called, the error seems unrelated to intel_bw.c, thus unrelated to this series. > > * igt@kms_force_connector_basic@force-connector-state: > - fi-kbl-8809g: NOTRUN -> [DMESG-WARN][8] > [8]: > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_144441v5/fi-kbl-880 > 9g/igt@kms_force_connector_basic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Again, amdgpu in the logs here. > > * igt@kms_force_connector_basic@force-edid: > - fi-kbl-8809g: NOTRUN -> [DMESG-FAIL][9] > [9]: > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_144441v5/fi-kbl-880 > 9g/igt@kms_force_connector_basic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > And amdgpu in the logs here as well. -- Gustavo Sousa
