<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW --- - [Bisected]igt/pc8 fails" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71631#c7">Comment # 7</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW --- - [Bisected]igt/pc8 fails" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71631">bug 71631</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:przanoni@gmail.com" title="Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@gmail.com>"> Paulo Zanoni</a> <pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=71631#c6">comment #6</a>) > (In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=71631#c5">comment #5</a>) > > Imo the real bug here is that QA's kernel build doesn't have runtime pm > > enabled. If we just skip paulo's nice runtime pm tests that's not good. > > Yeah, that's my guess too. Even my SNB machine has that file, so I got > surprised by QA's report. > > Still, our test should work on cases where there's just PC8 support without > runtime D3 (i.e., current drm-intel-nightly), so just forcing igt_assert on > everything is not a good idea. Our current options: 1 - Do *not* patch pm_pc8.c, so we'll still fail the test. This way we can make sure QA's Kernels will always have runtime PM enabled. Maybe we could change the commit message and say "please check if your Kernel has runtime PM support". Then we'd close the bug once QA has correctly configured their machines. 2 - Apply Chris's patch and SKIP the test in case the machine does not have runtime PM support on the Kernel. This will benefit people who only have PC8 support and don't want to bother with runtime PM support. I'd vote for option 1, especially since in the future PC8 and RPM will be a single feature, so we'll always require the autosuspend_delay_ms file to exist.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>