On 1/22/2020 18:24, Patchwork wrote:
== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915/guc: Update to GuC FW v40 (rev3)
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/72032/
State : failure

== Summary ==

CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_7786_full -> Patchwork_16198_full
====================================================

Summary
-------

  **FAILURE**

  Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_16198_full absolutely need to be
  verified manually.
  
  If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
  introduced in Patchwork_16198_full, please notify your bug team to allow them
  to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.

  

Possible new issues
-------------------

  Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in Patchwork_16198_full:

### IGT changes ###

#### Possible regressions ####

  * igt@kms_atomic_transition@5x-modeset-transitions-fencing:
    - shard-tglb:         NOTRUN -> [SKIP][1]
   [1]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_16198/shard-tglb8/igt@kms_atomic_transition@5x-modeset-transitions-fencing.html
According to the log, this test failed because it ran on a device that only had one display device attached and not the five required by the test:
IGT-Version: 1.24-g5cf58d947 (x86_64) (Linux: 5.5.0-rc7-CI-Patchwork_16198+ x86_64)
Starting subtest: 5x-modeset-transitions-fencing
Test requirement not met in function run_modeset_transition, file ../tests/kms_atomic_transition.c:887:
Test requirement: num_outputs >= requested_outputs
Should have at least 5 outputs, found 1
Subtest 5x-modeset-transitions-fencing: SKIP (0.000s)

I'm not sure how that could be called a regression in the GuC FW patch. I also don't see any reason why the test would previously have been a 'NOTRUN' and now is being attempted. Changing the GuC FW should not affect which KMS tests do or do not get run!

I don't have a system with five display devices so I can't actually run the test myself either. However, I do not see how this could be affected by changes to the GuC. Especially when the GuC is only being used for HuC authentication.

So I think this definitely counts as an issue with CI not this patch.

John.