[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 1/1] drm/i915/bxt: Check BIOS RC6 setup before enabling RC6

Tomi Sarvela tomi.p.sarvela at intel.com
Tue Feb 16 07:52:49 UTC 2016

On Monday 15 February 2016 18:07:47 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 05:08:03PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 Feb 2016, Imre Deak <imre.deak at intel.com> wrote:
> > >> > Thanks for the patch, I pushed it to -dinq.
> > >> 
> > >> The rule is, we should wait for the CI results before pushing.
> > > 
> > > Yes, I forgot to wait for the result for this version of the patch,
> > > thanks for pointing it out. As a side-note the CI result still didn't
> > > show up, what to do in that case? Resend the patch after a day or so?
> > 
> > Complain to Damien and/or Tomi.
> CI is/was down. Please don't push patches when that happens, but instead
> wait for things to stabilize again. Yes that slows things down, but otoh
> everytime CI is down we manage to sneak in an overlapping regression. And
> recovering from overlapping regressions makes everything even more painful
> than it already is.
> Yes, some kind of CI status dashboard is on the wishlist.

Well, CI wasn't down, it's just that there wasn't stable drm-intel-nightly to 
apply patches on. There could be something CI could do when tree is burning, 
and trying patches on *some* old version might not be the best choice, 
especially when patches might try to fix the breakage. Ideas welcome.

I'm halting the Patchwork processing when in above situation. This means that 
the non-tested Patchwork patchsets will be tested when the tree is in 
approximately good condition. Resending doesn't change anything.

My opinion is that as Patchwork is heavily dependent on drm-intel-nightly, 
this is probably how it should go, but automatically, without my intervention.

What kind of status dashboard would be good? As mentioned, CI itself was all 
good and well, and status board would reflect that.


More information about the Intel-gfx mailing list