On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 05:54:21PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:08:37PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:53:45AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > Chris Harris has liaised with Tomi and apparently GuC firmware is > > > already on the lab SKLs from ~two weeks ago. > > > > > > Since the firmware is on all machines, presumably we would also want > > > to have CI runs without the GuC enabled to ensure patches are not > > > breaking the execlists mode? > > > > > > How would you go about that? Submit patch series twice? Once with > > > the final "enable GuC" patch and one without? > > > > After the enable GuC patch, execlists will still be triggered on > > machines without the right firmware. We either remove the firmware from > > the CI image for that run, or reboot with i915.enable_guc=0 > > > > Yes, we should be checking that both modes "still" function. > > Since guc mode will be for skl only bdw will still do execlist tests for > us. I think that should be good enough. But I've heard also that the > private patch submission is coming along, so you could submit a 2nd time > without the "enable guc" patch. Since skl doesn't pass igt, I think it is presumptuous that will be fixed first if the results are totally ignored. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
