[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/4] drm/i915: Make intel_pipe_has_type() and

[Daniel Vetter]

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 07:14:48AM -0700, shuang.he at intel.com wrote:
> Tested-By: PRC QA PRTS (Patch Regression Test System Contact: shuang.he at intel.com)
> -------------------------------------Summary-------------------------------------
> Platform: baseline_drm_intel_nightly_pass_rate->patch_applied_pass_rate
> BYT: pass/total=271/271->269/271
> PNV: pass/total=269/271->270/271
> ILK: pass/total=3/3->3/3
> IVB: pass/total=271/271->271/271
> SNB: pass/total=271/271->271/271
> HSW: pass/total=271/271->271/271
> BDW: pass/total=271/271->269/271
> -------------------------------------Detailed-------------------------------------
> test_platform: test_suite, test_case, result_with_drm_intel_nightly->result_with_patch_applied
> BYT: Intel_gpu_tools, igt_gem_concurrent_blit_gttX-bcs-gpu-read-after-write-forked, PASS->TIMEOUT
> BYT: Intel_gpu_tools, igt_kms_setmode_invalid-clone-single-crtc, PASS->DMESG_WARN
> PNV: Intel_gpu_tools, igt_gem_concurrent_blit_gtt-bcs-gpu-read-after-write-forked, TIMEOUT->PASS
> BDW: Intel_gpu_tools, igt_gem_concurrent_blit_gtt-bcs-gpu-read-after-write-forked, PASS->TIMEOUT
> BDW: Intel_gpu_tools, igt_gem_concurrent_blit_gttX-bcs-gpu-read-after-write-forked, PASS->TIMEOUT

This smells a lot like flukes, since the patches really don't change
functionality at all. Is there some way to filter out unstable testcases,
or are these regressions real?

In any case I've gone ahead and merged Ander's patches.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch