All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run>,
	Petri Latvala <petri.latvala@intel.com>,
	Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau@arm.com>,
	DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	IGT development <igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
	"Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>,
	Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH] drm/doc: Make igts for cross-driver stuff mandatory
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 11:54:03 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190123105403.GD3271@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87k1iv3d37.fsf@intel.com>

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 12:03:40PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, "Wentland, Harry" <Harry.Wentland@amd.com> wrote:
> > Would it make sense to append something like ", if such a test can be
> > reasonably made using IGT for the target HW." to make it clear to
> > contributors that in cases like the one discussed this is at the
> > reviewers discretion?
> 
> I think the simplest change would be to say API changes SHOULD have
> driver-agnostic testcases, with the RFC 2119 meaning of SHOULD:
> 
>    SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
>    may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
>    particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
>    carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
> 
> I.e. s/need/should/. I think it also catches the spirit of the
> discussion here; seems like everyone agrees having tests is a good goal.
> 
> You'll have to allow for reviewer/maintainer/community discretion no
> matter what. Judging by the discussion, CRC based tests don't currently
> meet the driver-agnostic requirement. Playing devil's advocate, you
> could argue any new APIs couldn't be tested with CRC either, even if it
> were the most reasonable approach for i915.

I think I'll combine both for v3, I wanted to do something like that
anyway to address Eric Anholt's similar concern.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
igt-dev mailing list
igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run>,
	Petri Latvala <petri.latvala@intel.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau@arm.com>,
	DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	IGT development <igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
	"Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>,
	Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH] drm/doc: Make igts for cross-driver stuff mandatory
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 11:54:03 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190123105403.GD3271@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87k1iv3d37.fsf@intel.com>

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 12:03:40PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, "Wentland, Harry" <Harry.Wentland@amd.com> wrote:
> > Would it make sense to append something like ", if such a test can be
> > reasonably made using IGT for the target HW." to make it clear to
> > contributors that in cases like the one discussed this is at the
> > reviewers discretion?
> 
> I think the simplest change would be to say API changes SHOULD have
> driver-agnostic testcases, with the RFC 2119 meaning of SHOULD:
> 
>    SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
>    may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
>    particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
>    carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
> 
> I.e. s/need/should/. I think it also catches the spirit of the
> discussion here; seems like everyone agrees having tests is a good goal.
> 
> You'll have to allow for reviewer/maintainer/community discretion no
> matter what. Judging by the discussion, CRC based tests don't currently
> meet the driver-agnostic requirement. Playing devil's advocate, you
> could argue any new APIs couldn't be tested with CRC either, even if it
> were the most reasonable approach for i915.

I think I'll combine both for v3, I wanted to do something like that
anyway to address Eric Anholt's similar concern.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

  reply	other threads:[~2019-01-23 10:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-01-16 16:39 [igt-dev] [PATCH] drm/doc: Make igts for cross-driver stuff mandatory Daniel Vetter
2019-01-16 16:39 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-01-16 22:41 ` [igt-dev] " Eric Anholt
2019-01-16 22:41   ` Eric Anholt
2019-01-17 11:50   ` [igt-dev] " Daniel Vetter
2019-01-17 11:50     ` Daniel Vetter
2019-01-17 11:01 ` [igt-dev] " Arkadiusz Hiler
2019-01-17 11:01   ` Arkadiusz Hiler
2019-01-17 11:09   ` [igt-dev] " Petri Latvala
2019-01-17 11:09     ` Petri Latvala
2019-01-17 11:38 ` [igt-dev] " Liviu Dudau
2019-01-17 11:38   ` Liviu Dudau
2019-01-17 11:52   ` [igt-dev] " Daniel Vetter
2019-01-17 11:52     ` Daniel Vetter
2019-01-17 12:26     ` [igt-dev] " Liviu Dudau
2019-01-17 12:26       ` Liviu Dudau
2019-01-17 12:32       ` [igt-dev] " Daniel Vetter
2019-01-17 12:32         ` Daniel Vetter
2019-01-17 14:54         ` [igt-dev] " Liviu Dudau
2019-01-17 14:54           ` Liviu Dudau
2019-01-17 15:59           ` [igt-dev] " Daniel Vetter
2019-01-17 15:59             ` Daniel Vetter
2019-01-18 11:19             ` [igt-dev] " Liviu Dudau
2019-01-18 11:19               ` Liviu Dudau
2019-01-21 11:54     ` Brian Starkey
2019-01-21 17:21       ` Daniel Vetter
2019-01-22  8:53         ` [igt-dev] " Daniel Vetter
2019-01-22  8:53           ` Daniel Vetter
2019-01-22 13:27           ` [igt-dev] " Brian Starkey
2019-01-22 13:27             ` Brian Starkey
2019-01-22 14:03             ` [igt-dev] " Daniel Vetter
2019-01-22 14:03               ` Daniel Vetter
2019-01-22 15:08               ` [igt-dev] " Brian Starkey
2019-01-22 15:08                 ` Brian Starkey
2019-01-22 15:17                 ` [igt-dev] " Daniel Vetter
2019-01-22 15:17                   ` Daniel Vetter
2019-01-22 16:11                   ` [igt-dev] " Sean Paul
2019-01-22 16:11                     ` Sean Paul
2019-01-22 16:28                     ` [igt-dev] " Daniel Vetter
2019-01-22 16:28                       ` Daniel Vetter
2019-01-28 14:03                       ` [igt-dev] " Liviu Dudau
2019-01-28 14:03                         ` Liviu Dudau
2019-01-28 17:21                         ` [igt-dev] " Daniel Vetter
2019-01-28 17:21                           ` Daniel Vetter
2019-01-22 19:00 ` [igt-dev] " Wentland, Harry
2019-01-22 19:00   ` Wentland, Harry
2019-01-22 19:19   ` Daniel Vetter
2019-01-22 19:19     ` Daniel Vetter
2019-01-22 19:42     ` Wentland, Harry
2019-01-22 19:42       ` Wentland, Harry
2019-01-22 19:53       ` Sean Paul
2019-01-22 19:53         ` Sean Paul
2019-01-23  9:46         ` Brian Starkey
2019-01-23  9:46           ` Brian Starkey
2019-01-23 10:03       ` Daniel Stone
2019-01-23 10:03         ` Daniel Stone
2019-01-23 10:11         ` Jani Nikula
2019-01-23 10:11           ` Jani Nikula
2019-01-23 10:53           ` Daniel Vetter
2019-01-23 10:53             ` Daniel Vetter
2019-01-23 10:03       ` Jani Nikula
2019-01-23 10:54         ` Daniel Vetter [this message]
2019-01-23 10:54           ` Daniel Vetter
2019-01-23  9:40     ` Brian Starkey
2019-01-23  9:40       ` Brian Starkey
2019-01-23 10:50       ` Daniel Vetter
2019-01-23 10:50         ` Daniel Vetter

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190123105403.GD3271@phenom.ffwll.local \
    --to=daniel@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=Alexander.Deucher@amd.com \
    --cc=airlied@redhat.com \
    --cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=liviu.dudau@arm.com \
    --cc=petri.latvala@intel.com \
    --cc=sean@poorly.run \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.