Re: drm-intel-fixes CI issues

[Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>]

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 03:59:36PM -0400, Lyude Paul wrote:
> Poke: still wondering what we should do about the patch in these fixes that
> came up a little later which got Cc'd to stable, despite it apparently not
> being a patch we want in stable (mentioned this over IRC):
> 
> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/255428/ and
> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/50770/

Thanks for bringing this up.

So, These 2 patches are merged on the tree, but we don't want
them propagated to stable tree anymore? Do we have a fix for those?
Or are we reverting them?

We probably want to raise this up to Greg so he doesn't pick
them when running his stable scripts.

But also I was wondering another aspect of these patches I had here
on this dropped list.

In the end most of patches that was here will be picked by Greg's
stable scripts anyways.

Also other patches with cc:stable that were on that round
but got removed:

commit 1e712535c51a ("drm/i915/dp: Link train Fallback on eDP only if fallback link BW can fit panel's native mode")
commit 62358aa4ee86 ("drm/i915: Use the correct crtc when sanitizing plane mapping")
commit 68bc30deac62 ("drm/i915: Restore vblank interrupts earlier")

Should I add back at least these patches this week?
Or we should really wait for 4.19 to be released?

Thanks,
Rodrigo.

> 
> On Thu, 2018-10-11 at 09:17 +1000, David Airlie wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 8:53 AM Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > I need your help to decide what to do with this round of fixes.
> > > 
> > > I have collected these patches this week:
> > > 
> > > commit b43e8916172a ("drm/i915/dp: Link train Fallback on eDP only if
> > > fallback link BW can fit panel's native mode")
> > > commit 5abb01e541ed ("drm/i915: Fix intel_dp_mst_best_encoder()")
> > > commit 02713246296d ("drm/i915: Skip vcpi allocation for MSTB ports that
> > > are gone")
> > > commit cc6e027f5f50 ("drm/i915: Don't unset intel_connector->mst_port")
> > > commit f5aec50ba21e ("drm/i915: Use the correct crtc when sanitizing plane
> > > mapping")
> > > commit 6547684bf50a ("drm/i915: Restore vblank interrupts earlier")
> > > 
> > > CI_DIF_309 represents Greg's v4.19-rc7 and it is clean.
> > > 
> > > However 2 following CI runs are kind of strange.
> > > 
> > > There's few underruns here and there, but those looks flip-flops.
> > > 
> > > My biggest concern is specially around:
> > > 
> > > igt@kms_plane@pixel-format-pipe-a-planes:
> > > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-intel-fixes/shards.html
> > > 
> > > 
> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-intel-fixes/CI_DIF_311/shard-glk8/igt@kms_plane@pixel-format-pipe-c-planes.html
> > > 
> > > Thoughts?
> > > 
> > > I'm holding the pull request for now and will try to do some local tests
> > > here
> > > to see if I can identify a culprit.
> > 
> > At this late in the game for rc8, unless these fix a major regression
> > in the current tree, I'd say drop them until -next.
> > 
> > Dave.
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 	Lyude Paul
> 
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx