On Thu, 07 Jan 2016, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 03:06:13PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Thu, 07 Jan 2016, Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On 06/01/16 10:20, Patchwork wrote: >> >> == Summary == >> >> >> >> Built on 24b053acb16b4b3b021575e4ee30ffedd3ab2920 drm-intel-nightly: 2016y-01m-06d-08h-16m-11s UTC integration manifest >> >> >> >> Test drv_getparams_basic: >> >> Subgroup basic-eu-total: >> >> pass -> DMESG-FAIL (skl-i5k-2) >> >> pass -> DMESG-FAIL (skl-i7k-2) >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> >> bdw-nuci7 total:132 pass:122 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:9 >> >> bdw-ultra total:132 pass:126 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:6 >> >> bsw-nuc-2 total:135 pass:115 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:20 >> >> byt-nuc total:135 pass:121 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:13 >> >> hsw-brixbox total:135 pass:128 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:7 >> >> hsw-gt2 total:135 pass:131 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:4 >> >> ilk-hp8440p total:135 pass:100 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:35 >> >> ivb-t430s total:135 pass:129 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:6 >> >> skl-i5k-2 total:135 pass:2 dwarn:0 dfail:132 fail:0 skip:1 >> >> skl-i7k-2 total:135 pass:2 dwarn:0 dfail:132 fail:0 skip:1 >> >> snb-dellxps total:135 pass:123 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:12 >> >> snb-x220t total:135 pass:123 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:1 skip:11 >> >> >> >> Results at /archive/results/CI_IGT_test/Patchwork_1094/ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Intel-gfx mailing list >> >> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx >> > >> > Looks like the CI SKL doesn't have the GuC firmware installed? >> >> It's tons of: >> >> [ 38.169461] [drm:intel_lr_context_deferred_alloc [i915]] *ERROR* ring create req: -5 >> >> If that gets fixed by installing the GuC firmware, the answer is *not* >> to install the GuC firmware on the CI machines. The answer is to make >> the driver handle missing firmware gracefully. > > I kinda don't want to support 2 different ways to run things on any given > platform, because we can't even support one way properly. > > But since it took forever to get guc enabled people will indeed scream if > guc isn't there, so either we enable this only for bxt and later or we > indeed need to support both cases on skl :( It's probably considered a regression to add a hard requirement on guc firmware now that skl has been running fine without. Yet we probably want all the coverage we can get for the guc case, so I don't think we should rely on bxt alone with that. > Either way we do need to install guc firmware first on CI boxes, since > otherwise coverage isn't there. How about having guc firmware on half the CI boxes, at least for starters. It's going to blow up anyway... BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
