On ti, 2016-03-01 at 12:45 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 12:32:53PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-03-01 at 07:24 +0000, Patchwork wrote: > > > == Series Details == > > > > > > Series: drm/i915: Add missing NULL check before calling > > > initial_watermarks (rev2) > > > URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/3930/ > > > State : failure > > > > > > == Summary == > > > > > > Series 3930v2 drm/i915: Add missing NULL check before calling > > > initial_watermarks > > > http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/3930/revisions/2/ > > > mbox > > > / > > > > > > Test kms_flip: > > > Subgroup basic-flip-vs-dpms: > > > pass -> DMESG-WARN (ilk-hp8440p) UNSTABLE > > > Subgroup basic-flip-vs-wf_vblank: > > > pass -> FAIL (hsw-gt2) > > > > On HSW this patch shouldn't matter, but I haven't seen this problem > > earlier, so opened a bug for it: > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94347 > > Could be a duplicate of > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94294 > but I was too lazy to see i the ts vs. seq has the same 1 frame > difference. We should improve the asserts in the test to give us more > easily digestible information. Yep, looks like the same ~+16ms difference. I marked the bug as a duplicate. --Imre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
