13:19 <tjaalton> rbasak: all such tests use pci-id's. this adds new to support polaris
13:19 <tjaalton> old radeons use -ati
13:20 <tjaalton> this is for gcn1.0 and up iirc
13:20 <rbasak> I'm talking of "regression risk in case our understanding is wrong", not "what is our understanding".
13:21 <tjaalton> "code that detected" is in the driver
13:21 <tjaalton> you assume it's broken
13:22 <rbasak> I assume that broken-ness is unknown without some method to try to ensure that it's not.
13:22 <tjaalton> it's in 16.10
13:22 <tjaalton> guess we'd have heard by now
13:23 <rbasak> That's fair.
13:23 <tjaalton> also on 16.04.2
13:23 <rbasak> Oh? 16.04.2 pulled from xenial-proposed for this package?
13:24 <tjaalton> no, same version
13:24 <tjaalton> x-x-v-amdgpu-hwe-16.04
13:24 <rbasak> xserver-xorg-video-amdgpu is 1.1.0-1 in xenial release, doesn't exist in xenial-updates and is 1.1.2-0ubuntu0.16.04.1 in xenial-proposed, now?
13:19 <tjaalton> rbasak: all such tests use pci-id's. this adds new to support polaris
13:19 <tjaalton> old radeons use -ati
13:20 <tjaalton> this is for gcn1.0 and up iirc
13:20 <rbasak> I'm talking of "regression risk in case our understanding is wrong", not "what is our understanding".
13:21 <tjaalton> "code that detected" is in the driver
13:21 <tjaalton> you assume it's broken
13:22 <rbasak> I assume that broken-ness is unknown without some method to try to ensure that it's not.
13:22 <tjaalton> it's in 16.10
13:22 <tjaalton> guess we'd have heard by now
13:23 <rbasak> That's fair.
13:23 <tjaalton> also on 16.04.2
13:23 <rbasak> Oh? 16.04.2 pulled from xenial-proposed for this package?
13:24 <tjaalton> no, same version
13:24 <tjaalton> x-x-v-amdgpu- hwe-16. 04
13:24 <rbasak> xserver- xorg-video- amdgpu is 1.1.0-1 in xenial release, doesn't exist in xenial-updates and is 1.1.2-0ubuntu0. 16.04.1 in xenial-proposed, now?
13:24 <rbasak> Oh, I see.
13:24 <rbasak> OK