<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEEDINFO " title="NEEDINFO - [BDW/SKL/BSW] igt many kms_frontbuffer_tracking subcases fail" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91028#c21">Comment # 21</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEEDINFO " title="NEEDINFO - [BDW/SKL/BSW] igt many kms_frontbuffer_tracking subcases fail" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91028">bug 91028</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:przanoni@gmail.com" title="Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@gmail.com>"> Paulo Zanoni</a> <pre>(In reply to dog from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=91028#c20">comment #20</a>) > Will this bug be replaced with a fresh list of new failures since Paulo's > patches were applied? Or are we still working the issue with this bug? > Paulo, shouldn't you be the owner? I was the owner until someone changed this :) So kms_frontbuffer_tracking tests both PSR and FBC. Maybe we should have separate bug reports for each of them. For FBC specifically, my focus is on BDW+SKL right now, so at this moment I'm not really interested in seeing reports for HSW/BSW and others. For SKL specifically, we seem to be having general problems with Sink CRC calculation, and that is causing some tests to fail intermittently. I think Rodrigo is working on this. If we run the same test multiple times, and it fails only in a few cases, and only with Sink CRC assertion failures, I think we can consider the failure part of the Sink CRC bug. I'm constantly testing both BDW and SKL, and I get exactly 0 failures for BDW and only 1 failure for SKL (not counting the eventual sink CRC failures), which is on fbc-farfromfence. I would expect QA's results to match this. Maybe it would be good to have some data on the output of the failures that QA is getting with BDW and SKL.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>