Bug 78419 - [BDW]igt/kms_fbc_crc/page_flip fails
Summary: [BDW]igt/kms_fbc_crc/page_flip fails
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 76307
Alias: None
Product: DRI
Classification: Unclassified
Component: DRM/Intel (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other All
: medium normal
Assignee: Rodrigo Vivi
QA Contact: Intel GFX Bugs mailing list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2014-05-08 03:50 UTC by Guo Jinxian
Modified: 2016-10-13 07:28 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
i915 platform:
i915 features:


Attachments
dmesg (124.76 KB, text/plain)
2014-05-08 03:50 UTC, Guo Jinxian
no flags Details

Description Guo Jinxian 2014-05-08 03:50:39 UTC
Created attachment 98660 [details]
dmesg

*System Environment:
--------------------------
Regression: No.  
The cases always fails

Non-working platforms: BDW

 *kernel: 
--------------------------
-nightly: 5e83a7964e9530e6f693a3d49adccceb7a4b86e1 (fails)
-queued: d9ceb957fd97836c7fb0e403062e68ad2f737021 (fails)
    Author: Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
    Date:   Mon Apr 28 17:18:28 2014 -0700

    drm/i915: Support 64b relocations

    All the rest of the code to enable this is in my branch. Without my
    branch, hitting > 32b offsets is impossible. The code has always
    "supported" 64b, but it's never actually been run of tested. This change
    doesn't actually fix anything. [1] I am not sure why X won't work yet. I
    do not get hangs or obvious errors.

    There are 3 fixes grouped together here. First is to remove the
    hardcoded 0 for the upper dword of the relocation. The next fix is to
    use a 64b value for target_offset. The final fix is to not directly
    apply target_offset to reloc->delta. reloc->delta is part of ABI, and so
    we cannot change it. As it stands, 32b is enough to represent everything
    we're interested in representing anyway. The main problem is, we cannot
    add greater than 32b values to it directly.

    [1] Almost all of intel-gpu-tools is not yet ready to test 64b
    relocations. There are a few places that expect 32b values for offsets
    and these all won't work.

    Cc: Rafael Barbalho <rafael.barbalho@intel.com>
    Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
    Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
    Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
    Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

-fixes: 9bbfd20abe5025adbb0ac75160bd2e41158a9e83 (fails)
    Author: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
    Date:   Tue Apr 29 11:00:22 2014 -0300

    drm/i915: don't try DP_LINK_BW_5_4 on HSW ULX

    Because the docs say ULX doesn't support it on HSW.

    Reviewed-by: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>
    Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
    Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>

 *Bug detailed description:
-----------------------------
igt/kms_fbc_crc/page_flip fails

Output:
  ./kms_fbc_crc --run-subtest page_flip
IGT-Version: 1.6-g7935bbd (x86_64) (Linux: 3.15.0-rc2_drm-intel-fixes_0aa7de_20140507+ x86_64)
Beginning page_flip on crtc 5, connector 14
Test assertion failure function test_crc, file kms_fbc_crc.c:332:
Last errno: 0, Success
Failed assertion: igt_crc_equal(&crcs[0], &data->ref_crc[1])
Subtest page_flip: FAIL

 *Reproduce steps:
---------------------------- 
1. ./kms_fbc_crc --run-subtest page_flip
Comment 1 Daniel Vetter 2014-05-15 21:28:48 UTC
fbc is bonghits on bdw ... news at 11.
Comment 2 Ben Widawsky 2014-05-29 01:38:46 UTC
Are you referring to all the pipe underruns we're getting in the dmesg? I think a bunch of CRC tests are failing on BDW, and I don't see a clear indication this is FBC related.

Daniel, I saw in meeting minutes today, you fixed some CRC bug. Is this related?
Comment 3 Ben Widawsky 2014-06-04 00:36:10 UTC
Assigning to Rodrigo who is currently looking at BDW FBC
Comment 4 Rodrigo Vivi 2014-06-05 00:28:22 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 76307 ***
Comment 5 Jari Tahvanainen 2016-10-13 07:28:10 UTC
Closing as duplicate of closed+fixed.


Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.