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

[Chris Wilson]

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:29:13PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> 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?

They are full-ppgtt failure. The failure is easily reproducible but
sporadic.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre