Re: [PATCH v1 6/7] drm/ci: uprev IGT

[Vignesh Raman <vignesh.raman@collabora.com>]

Hi Dmitry,

On 27/01/26 19:55, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 06:26:11PM +0530, Vignesh Raman wrote:
>> Hi Dmitry,
>>
>> On 27/01/26 18:01, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 04:14:01PM +0530, Vignesh Raman wrote:
>>>> Recent IGT [1] seems to be broken on MSM hardware, with many tests
>>>> failing due to the old_primary->index != 0 assertion. Uprev IGT to
>>>> the last known good revision where the tests pass, and update the
>>>> expectation files accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/igt-gpu-tools/-/commit/a909ab05
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vignesh Raman <vignesh.raman@collabora.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>
>>> It is not clear, which parts here are due to Mesa uprev (yes, there are
>>> some of those) and which are due to the IGT uprev. Please split into two
>>> commits and make sure that Mesa-uprev passes more or less clearly.
>>
>> The mesa uprev and the IGT uprev are already split into two separate
>> commits. The IGT uprev only updates the IGT version in gitlab-ci.yml and
>> xfails.
> 
> I think I was not clear enough: Mesa uprev also causes some of the
> xfails. Those needs to be a part of the Mesa uprev commit.

I have created v2 where the mesa uprev commit also includes the updated 
xfails. I will send IGT uprev as a separate commit/series.

https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20260210071138.2256773-1-vignesh.raman@collabora.com/T/#t

Regards,
Vignesh

> 
>