[PATCH RESEND 1/2] drm/i915: make device info bitfield flags bools

[PATCH RESEND 1/2] drm/i915: make device info bitfield flags bools

[Jani Nikula]

This is more robust for assignments and comparisons.

Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index d9d07b70f05c..bb0b6f64000e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -752,7 +752,7 @@ struct intel_csr {
 	func(has_ddi) sep \
 	func(has_fpga_dbg)
 
-#define DEFINE_FLAG(name) u8 name:1
+#define DEFINE_FLAG(name) bool name:1
 #define SEP_SEMICOLON ;
 
 struct intel_device_info {
-- 
2.1.4

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

[PATCH RESEND 2/2] drm/i915: don't mix bitwise and logical operations for has_snoop

[Jani Nikula]

Also make the code more readable.

Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
index 547100fa3122..a8c79f6512a4 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
@@ -954,9 +954,11 @@ static void intel_device_info_runtime_init(struct drm_device *dev)
 	else if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 9)
 		gen9_sseu_info_init(dev);
 
-	/* Snooping is broken on BXT A stepping. */
 	info->has_snoop = !info->has_llc;
-	info->has_snoop &= !IS_BXT_REVID(dev, 0, BXT_REVID_A1);
+
+	/* Snooping is broken on BXT A stepping. */
+	if (IS_BXT_REVID(dev, 0, BXT_REVID_A1))
+		info->has_snoop = false;
 
 	DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("slice total: %u\n", info->slice_total);
 	DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("subslice total: %u\n", info->subslice_total);
-- 
2.1.4

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH RESEND 2/2] drm/i915: don't mix bitwise and logical operations for has_snoop

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 13/05/16 15:04, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Also make the code more readable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c | 6 ++++--
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
> index 547100fa3122..a8c79f6512a4 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
> @@ -954,9 +954,11 @@ static void intel_device_info_runtime_init(struct drm_device *dev)
>   	else if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 9)
>   		gen9_sseu_info_init(dev);
>
> -	/* Snooping is broken on BXT A stepping. */
>   	info->has_snoop = !info->has_llc;
> -	info->has_snoop &= !IS_BXT_REVID(dev, 0, BXT_REVID_A1);
> +
> +	/* Snooping is broken on BXT A stepping. */
> +	if (IS_BXT_REVID(dev, 0, BXT_REVID_A1))
> +		info->has_snoop = false;
>
>   	DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("slice total: %u\n", info->slice_total);
>   	DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("subslice total: %u\n", info->subslice_total);
>

Yeah that is more readable.

Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>

Regards,

Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/2] drm/i915: make device info bitfield flags bools

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 13/05/16 15:04, Jani Nikula wrote:
> This is more robust for assignments and comparisons.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> index d9d07b70f05c..bb0b6f64000e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> @@ -752,7 +752,7 @@ struct intel_csr {
>   	func(has_ddi) sep \
>   	func(has_fpga_dbg)
>
> -#define DEFINE_FLAG(name) u8 name:1
> +#define DEFINE_FLAG(name) bool name:1
>   #define SEP_SEMICOLON ;
>
>   struct intel_device_info {
>

The churn virus spreads? :)

I tried that but it was negatively impacting the compiler. For some 
reason it increases .text by 2.5k here. Don't see anything obvious, 
would have to look at the code more closely to spot exactly why.

Regards,

Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/2] drm/i915: make device info bitfield flags bools

[Chris Wilson]

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 03:25:05PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> 
> On 13/05/16 15:04, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >This is more robust for assignments and comparisons.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
> >---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> >index d9d07b70f05c..bb0b6f64000e 100644
> >--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> >+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> >@@ -752,7 +752,7 @@ struct intel_csr {
> >  	func(has_ddi) sep \
> >  	func(has_fpga_dbg)
> >
> >-#define DEFINE_FLAG(name) u8 name:1
> >+#define DEFINE_FLAG(name) bool name:1
> >  #define SEP_SEMICOLON ;
> >
> >  struct intel_device_info {
> >
> 
> The churn virus spreads? :)
> 
> I tried that but it was negatively impacting the compiler. For some
> reason it increases .text by 2.5k here. Don't see anything obvious,
> would have to look at the code more closely to spot exactly why.

Oh, that's not fun. bool:1 holds such promise for a clear explanation of
the most common form of bitfield.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/2] drm/i915: make device info bitfield flags bools

[Jani Nikula]

On Fri, 13 May 2016, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 03:25:05PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> 
>> On 13/05/16 15:04, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> >This is more robust for assignments and comparisons.
>> >
>> >Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
>> >---
>> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 2 +-
>> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> >diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>> >index d9d07b70f05c..bb0b6f64000e 100644
>> >--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>> >+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>> >@@ -752,7 +752,7 @@ struct intel_csr {
>> >  	func(has_ddi) sep \
>> >  	func(has_fpga_dbg)
>> >
>> >-#define DEFINE_FLAG(name) u8 name:1
>> >+#define DEFINE_FLAG(name) bool name:1
>> >  #define SEP_SEMICOLON ;
>> >
>> >  struct intel_device_info {
>> >
>> 
>> The churn virus spreads? :)
>> 
>> I tried that but it was negatively impacting the compiler. For some
>> reason it increases .text by 2.5k here. Don't see anything obvious,
>> would have to look at the code more closely to spot exactly why.
>
> Oh, that's not fun. bool:1 holds such promise for a clear explanation of
> the most common form of bitfield.

Really a bummer, especially since assigning any positive even number to
unsigned int foo:1 will result in 0.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/2] drm/i915: make device info bitfield flags bools

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 13/05/16 15:47, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2016, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 03:25:05PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13/05/16 15:04, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>>> This is more robust for assignments and comparisons.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 2 +-
>>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>> index d9d07b70f05c..bb0b6f64000e 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>> @@ -752,7 +752,7 @@ struct intel_csr {
>>>>   	func(has_ddi) sep \
>>>>   	func(has_fpga_dbg)
>>>>
>>>> -#define DEFINE_FLAG(name) u8 name:1
>>>> +#define DEFINE_FLAG(name) bool name:1
>>>>   #define SEP_SEMICOLON ;
>>>>
>>>>   struct intel_device_info {
>>>>
>>>
>>> The churn virus spreads? :)
>>>
>>> I tried that but it was negatively impacting the compiler. For some
>>> reason it increases .text by 2.5k here. Don't see anything obvious,
>>> would have to look at the code more closely to spot exactly why.
>>
>> Oh, that's not fun. bool:1 holds such promise for a clear explanation of
>> the most common form of bitfield.
>
> Really a bummer, especially since assigning any positive even number to
> unsigned int foo:1 will result in 0.

That is a pretty strong argument to go for this rather than make sure 
all places which set them are correct.

Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>

Regards,

Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/2] drm/i915: make device info bitfield flags bools

[Dave Gordon]

On 13/05/16 16:05, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 13/05/16 15:47, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 May 2016, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 03:25:05PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 13/05/16 15:04, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>>>> This is more robust for assignments and comparisons.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 2 +-
>>>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>>> index d9d07b70f05c..bb0b6f64000e 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>>> @@ -752,7 +752,7 @@ struct intel_csr {
>>>>>       func(has_ddi) sep \
>>>>>       func(has_fpga_dbg)
>>>>>
>>>>> -#define DEFINE_FLAG(name) u8 name:1
>>>>> +#define DEFINE_FLAG(name) bool name:1
>>>>>   #define SEP_SEMICOLON ;
>>>>>
>>>>>   struct intel_device_info {
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The churn virus spreads? :)
>>>>
>>>> I tried that but it was negatively impacting the compiler. For some
>>>> reason it increases .text by 2.5k here. Don't see anything obvious,
>>>> would have to look at the code more closely to spot exactly why.
>>>
>>> Oh, that's not fun. bool:1 holds such promise for a clear explanation of
>>> the most common form of bitfield.
>>
>> Really a bummer, especially since assigning any positive even number to
>> unsigned int foo:1 will result in 0.
>
> That is a pretty strong argument to go for this rather than make sure
> all places which set them are correct.
>
> Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>
> Regards,
> Tvrtko

Unfortunately, the compiler doesn't generate such good code when using 
'bool' vs. 'u8' for these bitfields.

Firstly, it looks like the compiler DOESN'T combine bool-bitfield tests 
such as "if (IS_A() || IS_B())", whereas it does if they're u8. Example:

With bitfields as 'u8'

	if (IS_HASWELL(dev) || IS_BROADWELL(dev))
48 8b 57 28          	mov    0x28(%rdi),%rdx	# dev->dev_priv
0f b6 52 30          	movzbl 0x30(%rdx),%edx	# dev_priv->flag byte
f6 c2 60             	test   $0x60,%dl	# (haswell|broadwell)
0f 85 bb 00 00 00    	jne    12e4		# branch to if-true

	else if (IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev) || IS_CHERRYVIEW(dev))
83 e2 18             	and    $0x18,%edx	# test two more flags
0f 84 1c 01 00 00    	je     134e		# skip if neither
                         ... code for VLV/CHV ...
(code for HSW/BDW is out-of-line, at the end of the function)

With bitfields as bools:

48 8b 57 28          	mov    0x28(%rdi),%rdx	# dev->dev_priv
0f b6 52 30          	movzbl 0x30(%rdx),%edx	# dev_priv->flag byte
f6 c2 20             	test   $0x20,%dl	# test one flag
75 09                	jne    1241		# jump if true
f6 c2 40             	test   $0x40,%dl	# test other flag
0f 84 b7 00 00 00    	je     12f8		# skip if not
                         ... code for HSW/BDW ...
(code for VLV/CHV/other is later)

So that would suggest that the compiler generates more efficient code 
for 'u8' (at least it didn't reload the flag byte even in the 'bool' 
case). Here's another case:

With bitfields as bools:

	dev_priv->psr_mmio_base = IS_HASWELL(dev_priv) ?
		HSW_EDP_PSR_BASE : BDW_EDP_PSR_BASE;
0f b6 43 30          	movzbl 0x30(%rbx),%eax	# flags byte
c0 e8 05             	shr    $0x5,%al		# haswell->bit 0
83 e0 01             	and    $0x1,%eax	# leaves bit 0 only
3c 01                	cmp    $0x1,%al		# compare to 1u
19 c0                	sbb    %eax,%eax	# convert to 0/-1
25 00 b0 00 00       	and    $0xb000,%eax	# convert to 0/b000
05 00 48 06 00       	add    $0x64800,%eax	# final result
89 83 e8 20 00 00    	mov    %eax,0x20e8(%rbx)# store it

This is ingenious code, avoiding any branching. Now with 'u8':

0f b6 43 30          	movzbl 0x30(%rbx),%eax
83 e0 20             	and    $0x20,%eax	# leaves bit 5 only
3c 01                	cmp    $0x1,%al		# compare to 1u
19 c0                	sbb    %eax,%eax	# convert to 0/-1
25 00 b0 00 00       	and    $0xb000,%eax	# etc
05 00 48 06 00       	add    $0x64800,%eax
89 83 e8 20 00 00    	mov    %eax,0x20e8(%rbx)

Again it's shorter, because the compiler has been able to extract a 
truth-value without shifting the "haswell" bit down to bit 0 first.

.Dave.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/2] drm/i915: make device info bitfield flags bools

[Jani Nikula]

On Mon, 16 May 2016, Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon@intel.com> wrote:
> On 13/05/16 16:05, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>
>> On 13/05/16 15:47, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 May 2016, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 03:25:05PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 13/05/16 15:04, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>>>>> This is more robust for assignments and comparisons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 2 +-
>>>>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>>>> index d9d07b70f05c..bb0b6f64000e 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>>>>> @@ -752,7 +752,7 @@ struct intel_csr {
>>>>>>       func(has_ddi) sep \
>>>>>>       func(has_fpga_dbg)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -#define DEFINE_FLAG(name) u8 name:1
>>>>>> +#define DEFINE_FLAG(name) bool name:1
>>>>>>   #define SEP_SEMICOLON ;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   struct intel_device_info {
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The churn virus spreads? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> I tried that but it was negatively impacting the compiler. For some
>>>>> reason it increases .text by 2.5k here. Don't see anything obvious,
>>>>> would have to look at the code more closely to spot exactly why.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, that's not fun. bool:1 holds such promise for a clear explanation of
>>>> the most common form of bitfield.
>>>
>>> Really a bummer, especially since assigning any positive even number to
>>> unsigned int foo:1 will result in 0.
>>
>> That is a pretty strong argument to go for this rather than make sure
>> all places which set them are correct.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tvrtko
>
> Unfortunately, the compiler doesn't generate such good code when using 
> 'bool' vs. 'u8' for these bitfields.


I've pushed patch 2/2 while the jury seems to be still out for 1/2.

Generally we might prefer bools anyway, but this struct is const in
dev_priv with the idea that this is immutable data, and we override the
const briefly on driver load in intel_device_info_runtime_init().

Checking all usage is not a huge effort, although we might still screw
this up later on...

BR,
Jani.


>
> Firstly, it looks like the compiler DOESN'T combine bool-bitfield tests 
> such as "if (IS_A() || IS_B())", whereas it does if they're u8. Example:
>
> With bitfields as 'u8'
>
> 	if (IS_HASWELL(dev) || IS_BROADWELL(dev))
> 48 8b 57 28          	mov    0x28(%rdi),%rdx	# dev->dev_priv
> 0f b6 52 30          	movzbl 0x30(%rdx),%edx	# dev_priv->flag byte
> f6 c2 60             	test   $0x60,%dl	# (haswell|broadwell)
> 0f 85 bb 00 00 00    	jne    12e4		# branch to if-true
>
> 	else if (IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev) || IS_CHERRYVIEW(dev))
> 83 e2 18             	and    $0x18,%edx	# test two more flags
> 0f 84 1c 01 00 00    	je     134e		# skip if neither
>                          ... code for VLV/CHV ...
> (code for HSW/BDW is out-of-line, at the end of the function)
>
> With bitfields as bools:
>
> 48 8b 57 28          	mov    0x28(%rdi),%rdx	# dev->dev_priv
> 0f b6 52 30          	movzbl 0x30(%rdx),%edx	# dev_priv->flag byte
> f6 c2 20             	test   $0x20,%dl	# test one flag
> 75 09                	jne    1241		# jump if true
> f6 c2 40             	test   $0x40,%dl	# test other flag
> 0f 84 b7 00 00 00    	je     12f8		# skip if not
>                          ... code for HSW/BDW ...
> (code for VLV/CHV/other is later)
>
> So that would suggest that the compiler generates more efficient code 
> for 'u8' (at least it didn't reload the flag byte even in the 'bool' 
> case). Here's another case:
>
> With bitfields as bools:
>
> 	dev_priv->psr_mmio_base = IS_HASWELL(dev_priv) ?
> 		HSW_EDP_PSR_BASE : BDW_EDP_PSR_BASE;
> 0f b6 43 30          	movzbl 0x30(%rbx),%eax	# flags byte
> c0 e8 05             	shr    $0x5,%al		# haswell->bit 0
> 83 e0 01             	and    $0x1,%eax	# leaves bit 0 only
> 3c 01                	cmp    $0x1,%al		# compare to 1u
> 19 c0                	sbb    %eax,%eax	# convert to 0/-1
> 25 00 b0 00 00       	and    $0xb000,%eax	# convert to 0/b000
> 05 00 48 06 00       	add    $0x64800,%eax	# final result
> 89 83 e8 20 00 00    	mov    %eax,0x20e8(%rbx)# store it
>
> This is ingenious code, avoiding any branching. Now with 'u8':
>
> 0f b6 43 30          	movzbl 0x30(%rbx),%eax
> 83 e0 20             	and    $0x20,%eax	# leaves bit 5 only
> 3c 01                	cmp    $0x1,%al		# compare to 1u
> 19 c0                	sbb    %eax,%eax	# convert to 0/-1
> 25 00 b0 00 00       	and    $0xb000,%eax	# etc
> 05 00 48 06 00       	add    $0x64800,%eax
> 89 83 e8 20 00 00    	mov    %eax,0x20e8(%rbx)
>
> Again it's shorter, because the compiler has been able to extract a 
> truth-value without shifting the "haswell" bit down to bit 0 first.
>
> .Dave.
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

✗ Ro.CI.BAT: failure for series starting with [RESEND,1/2] drm/i915: make device info bitfield flags bools

[Patchwork]

== Series Details ==

Series: series starting with [RESEND,1/2] drm/i915: make device info bitfield flags bools
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/7149/
State : failure

== Summary ==

Series 7149v1 Series without cover letter
http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/7149/revisions/1/mbox

Test kms_flip:
        Subgroup basic-flip-vs-wf_vblank:
                pass       -> FAIL       (ro-byt-n2820)
Test kms_pipe_crc_basic:
        Subgroup hang-read-crc-pipe-a:
                dmesg-warn -> PASS       (ro-ivb2-i7-3770)
Test kms_sink_crc_basic:
                skip       -> PASS       (ro-skl-i7-6700hq)

ro-bdw-i5-5250u  total:219  pass:181  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:38 
ro-bdw-i7-5557U  total:219  pass:206  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:13 
ro-bdw-i7-5600u  total:219  pass:187  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:32 
ro-bsw-n3050     total:219  pass:174  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:3   skip:42 
ro-byt-n2820     total:218  pass:173  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:4   skip:41 
ro-hsw-i3-4010u  total:218  pass:193  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:25 
ro-hsw-i7-4770r  total:219  pass:194  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:25 
ro-ilk-i7-620lm  total:219  pass:151  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:1   skip:67 
ro-ilk1-i5-650   total:214  pass:152  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:1   skip:61 
ro-ivb-i7-3770   total:219  pass:183  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:36 
ro-ivb2-i7-3770  total:219  pass:187  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:32 
ro-skl-i7-6700hq total:214  pass:190  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:24 
ro-snb-i7-2620M  total:219  pass:177  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:1   skip:41 

Results at /archive/results/CI_IGT_test/RO_Patchwork_891/

b72b8e4 drm-intel-nightly: 2016y-05m-13d-12h-18m-56s UTC integration manifest
23b0257 drm/i915: don't mix bitwise and logical operations for has_snoop
0e2cf7a drm/i915: make device info bitfield flags bools

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx