From: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
To: Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run>, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: IGT development <igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH] RFC: Make igts for cross-driver stuff mandatory?
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:35:50 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87efcernkp.fsf@anholt.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181025125149.GG154160@art_vandelay>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1706 bytes --]
Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 10:50:49AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This is just to collect feedback on this idea, and see whether the
>> overall dri-devel community stands on all this. I think the past few
>> cross-vendor uapi extensions all came with igts attached, and
>> personally I think there's lots of value in having them: A
>> cross-vendor interface isn't useful if every driver implements it
>> slightly differently.
>>
>> I think there's 2 questions here:
>>
>> - Do we want to make such testcases mandatory?
>>
>
> Yes, more testing == better code.
>
>
>> - If yes, are we there yet, or is there something crucially missing
>> still?
>
> In my experience, no. Last week while trying to replicate an intel-gfx CI
> failure, I tried compiling igt for one of my (intel) chromebooks. It seems like
> cross-compilation (or, in my case, just specifying
> prefix/ld_library_path/sbin_path) is broken on igt. If we want to impose
> restrictions across the entire subsystem, we need to make sure that everyone can
> build and deploy igt easily.
>
> I managed to hack around everything and get it working, but I still haven't
> tried switching out the toolchain. Once we have some GitLab CI to validate
> cross-compilation, then we can consider making IGT mandatory.
>
> It's possible that I'm just a meson n00b and didn't use the right incantation,
> so maybe it already works, but then we need better documentation.
>
> I've pasted my horrible hacks below, I also didn't have libunwind, so removed
> its usage.
I've also had to cut out libunwind for cross-compiling on many
occasions. Worst library.
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
To: Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run>, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: IGT development <igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [igt-dev] [PATCH] RFC: Make igts for cross-driver stuff mandatory?
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:35:50 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87efcernkp.fsf@anholt.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181025125149.GG154160@art_vandelay>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1706 bytes --]
Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 10:50:49AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This is just to collect feedback on this idea, and see whether the
>> overall dri-devel community stands on all this. I think the past few
>> cross-vendor uapi extensions all came with igts attached, and
>> personally I think there's lots of value in having them: A
>> cross-vendor interface isn't useful if every driver implements it
>> slightly differently.
>>
>> I think there's 2 questions here:
>>
>> - Do we want to make such testcases mandatory?
>>
>
> Yes, more testing == better code.
>
>
>> - If yes, are we there yet, or is there something crucially missing
>> still?
>
> In my experience, no. Last week while trying to replicate an intel-gfx CI
> failure, I tried compiling igt for one of my (intel) chromebooks. It seems like
> cross-compilation (or, in my case, just specifying
> prefix/ld_library_path/sbin_path) is broken on igt. If we want to impose
> restrictions across the entire subsystem, we need to make sure that everyone can
> build and deploy igt easily.
>
> I managed to hack around everything and get it working, but I still haven't
> tried switching out the toolchain. Once we have some GitLab CI to validate
> cross-compilation, then we can consider making IGT mandatory.
>
> It's possible that I'm just a meson n00b and didn't use the right incantation,
> so maybe it already works, but then we need better documentation.
>
> I've pasted my horrible hacks below, I also didn't have libunwind, so removed
> its usage.
I've also had to cut out libunwind for cross-compiling on many
occasions. Worst library.
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-25 16:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-19 8:50 [PATCH] RFC: Make igts for cross-driver stuff mandatory? Daniel Vetter
2018-10-19 8:50 ` [igt-dev] " Daniel Vetter
2018-10-22 10:27 ` ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for " Patchwork
2018-10-22 10:52 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2018-10-22 12:59 ` ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
2018-10-25 12:51 ` [PATCH] " Sean Paul
2018-10-25 12:51 ` [igt-dev] " Sean Paul
2018-10-25 16:35 ` Eric Anholt [this message]
2018-10-25 16:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Eric Anholt
[not found] ` <87efcernkp.fsf-WhKQ6XTQaPysTnJN9+BGXg@public.gmane.org>
2018-10-26 3:49 ` Zhou, David(ChunMing)
2018-10-26 3:49 ` Zhou, David(ChunMing)
[not found] ` <BY1PR12MB0502FFCA69A2C76817C22C8DB4F00-PicGAnIBOobrCwm+z9iKNgdYzm3356FpvxpqHgZTriW3zl9H0oFU5g@public.gmane.org>
2018-10-26 8:32 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-10-26 8:32 ` Daniel Vetter
[not found] ` <CAKMK7uFsET+riNKw6eGt1+Uiuhq8eww1E4OFYVCC83CfQFN5qg-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2018-10-26 8:48 ` zhoucm1
2018-10-26 8:48 ` zhoucm1
2018-10-26 14:41 ` Alex Deucher
2018-10-26 14:41 ` Alex Deucher
[not found] ` <20181019085049.25482-1-daniel.vetter-/w4YWyX8dFk@public.gmane.org>
2018-10-25 9:58 ` Liviu Dudau
2018-10-25 9:58 ` [igt-dev] " Liviu Dudau
[not found] ` <20181025095804.GB29083-hOhETlTuV5niMG9XS5x8Mg@public.gmane.org>
2018-10-25 10:31 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-10-25 10:31 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2018-10-26 15:28 ` Alex Deucher
2018-10-26 15:28 ` Alex Deucher
2018-10-30 2:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Dave Airlie
2018-10-30 2:17 ` [igt-dev] " Dave Airlie
[not found] ` <CAPM=9tykF1U0Kah42ej7GR=6HyKe+WeV-LRe7_xB0VEUkikdPQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2018-10-30 8:54 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-10-30 8:54 ` 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=87efcernkp.fsf@anholt.net \
--to=eric@anholt.net \
--cc=amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--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.