<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_ASSIGNED " title="ASSIGNED - [CI] igt@kms_plane_scaling - Test assertion failure function igt_drm_plane_commit Failed assertion: ret == 0" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103159#c8">Comment # 8</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_ASSIGNED " title="ASSIGNED - [CI] igt@kms_plane_scaling - Test assertion failure function igt_drm_plane_commit Failed assertion: ret == 0" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103159">bug 103159</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:krisman@collabora.co.uk" title="krisman@collabora.co.uk">krisman@collabora.co.uk</a> <pre>Regarding the pixel clock scaling exceeded issue: > > > [drm:skl_check_pipe_max_pixel_rate [i915]] Max supported pixel clock with > > > scaling exceeded The problem started to show after the following commit, which included a verification during .atomic_check() to ensure the bandwidth for pixel flow is enough for scaling operations. 73b0ca8ec76 ("drm/i915/skl+: consider max supported plane pixel rate while scaling") The verification always succeeds when upscaling, since that operation won't increase the pixel rate, but it causes the same test to fail a while later, when trying downscaling. As far as I can tell, there is no issue with the verification algorithm introduced by that commit, since it correctly calculates the desired pixel rate. The problem happens a little before that on the driver, when calculating the required clock, because it doesn't take in consideration the scaling property. This is where I'm patching a fix.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>