Also seen on GLK: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_33/fi-glk-j4005/igt@pm_rpm@drm-resources-equal.html

https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_37/fi-glk-j4005/igt@pm_rpm@drm-resources-equal.html

Not seen since drmtip_37 (1 month, 1 week / 28 runs ago), even though it was seen once before on drmtip_31.

Closing, thanks.

It is back!

https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_74/fi-glk-j4005/igt@pm_rpm@drm-resources-equal.html

(pm_rpm:1781) CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function assert_drm_connectors_equal, file ../tests/pm_rpm.c:506:
(pm_rpm:1781) CRITICAL: Failed assertion: c1->count_modes == c2->count_modes
(pm_rpm:1781) CRITICAL: error: 23 != 40
Subtest drm-resources-equal failed.

https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_4780/fi-glk-j4005/igt@pm_rpm@module-reload.html

(pm_rpm:3993) CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function assert_drm_connectors_equal, file ../tests/pm_rpm.c:507:
(pm_rpm:3993) CRITICAL: Failed assertion: c1->count_modes == c2->count_modes
(pm_rpm:3993) CRITICAL: error: 40 != 43
Subtest module-reload failed.

Also seen on APL: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_1980/fi-apl-guc/igt@pm_rpm@module-reload.html

Starting subtest: module-reload
(pm_rpm:3480) CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function assert_drm_connectors_equal, file ../tests/pm_rpm.c:512:
(pm_rpm:3480) CRITICAL: Failed assertion: c1->count_modes == c2->count_modes
(pm_rpm:3480) CRITICAL: error: 45 != 32
Subtest module-reload failed.

(In reply to Martin Peres from comment #6)
> Also seen on APL:
> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_1980/fi-apl-guc/
> igt@pm_rpm@module-reload.html
> 
> Starting subtest: module-reload
> (pm_rpm:3480) CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function
> assert_drm_connectors_equal, file ../tests/pm_rpm.c:512:
> (pm_rpm:3480) CRITICAL: Failed assertion: c1->count_modes == c2->count_modes
> (pm_rpm:3480) CRITICAL: error: 45 != 32
> Subtest module-reload failed.

There is a variation in the number of modes that are getting pruned. The driver decides the max supported dot clock based on source and sink capabilities; given that the source side caps. do not change, it most likely is the drm_dp_downstream_max_clock() from the lspcon device that is changing.

(In reply to Dhinakaran Pandiyan from comment #7)
> (In reply to Martin Peres from comment #6)
> > Also seen on APL:
> > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_1980/fi-apl-guc/
> > igt@pm_rpm@module-reload.html
> > 
> > Starting subtest: module-reload
> > (pm_rpm:3480) CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function
> > assert_drm_connectors_equal, file ../tests/pm_rpm.c:512:
> > (pm_rpm:3480) CRITICAL: Failed assertion: c1->count_modes == c2->count_modes
> > (pm_rpm:3480) CRITICAL: error: 45 != 32
> > Subtest module-reload failed.
> 
> There is a variation in the number of modes that are getting pruned. The
> driver decides the max supported dot clock based on source and sink
> capabilities; given that the source side caps. do not change, it most likely
> is the drm_dp_downstream_max_clock() from the lspcon device that is changing.
Scratch that, the logs show lspcon link training failures.

(In reply to Martin Peres from comment #5)
> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_4780/fi-glk-j4005/
> igt@pm_rpm@module-reload.html
> 
> (pm_rpm:3993) CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function
> assert_drm_connectors_equal, file ../tests/pm_rpm.c:507:
> (pm_rpm:3993) CRITICAL: Failed assertion: c1->count_modes == c2->count_modes
> (pm_rpm:3993) CRITICAL: error: 40 != 43
> Subtest module-reload failed.

These failures are different from those on fi-apl-guc, we should split this bug.
* fi-apl-guc has lspcon link training failures and should possibly be merged with https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108529

* fi-glk-j4005 has edid read errors.

Should this really be Highest? I'm seeing a 0.3% reproduction rate, last seen almost a month ago. I believe we have other bugs that affect BAT that reproduce more than 0.3%, that more warrant a "Highest" priority.

Thoughts?

(In reply to James Ausmus from comment #10)
> Should this really be Highest? I'm seeing a 0.3% reproduction rate, last
> seen almost a month ago. I believe we have other bugs that affect BAT that
> reproduce more than 0.3%, that more warrant a "Highest" priority.
> 
> Thoughts?

Agreed. The customer impact does not seem that great, and same for the severity. It could be demoted to high.

(In reply to Dhinakaran Pandiyan from comment #9)
> (In reply to Martin Peres from comment #5)
> > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_4780/fi-glk-j4005/
> > igt@pm_rpm@module-reload.html
> > 
> > (pm_rpm:3993) CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function
> > assert_drm_connectors_equal, file ../tests/pm_rpm.c:507:
> > (pm_rpm:3993) CRITICAL: Failed assertion: c1->count_modes == c2->count_modes
> > (pm_rpm:3993) CRITICAL: error: 40 != 43
> > Subtest module-reload failed.
> 
> These failures are different from those on fi-apl-guc, we should split this
> bug.
> * fi-apl-guc has lspcon link training failures and should possibly be merged
> with https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108529
> 
> * fi-glk-j4005 has edid read errors.
The problematic display was already changed on this machine; let's open a new bug if this machine has any new issues.


To summarize, the only remaining problem is the lspcon link training failures on fi-apl-guc.

Martin,

How can I get the last failure of this signature on fi-apl-guc? Also, can you make cibuglog track only failures on this machine for this bug?

Machine: fi-apl-guc
LSPCON link training failures are already being debugged as part of https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103313. Given that the LSPCON chip (DP branch: OUI 00-60-ad dev-ID MC2800 HW-rev 2.2 SW-rev 1.75 quirks 0x0000) is the same, let's mark this bug a duplicate so that we have updates in one place.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 103313 ***

Seen in average once every 124 runs, now not seen for 2232 runs.

The CI Bug Log issue associated to this bug has been archived.

New failures matching the above filters will not be associated to this bug anymore.