From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Eric Anholt In-Reply-To: <20181025125149.GG154160@art_vandelay> References: <20181019085049.25482-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> <20181025125149.GG154160@art_vandelay> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:35:50 -0700 Message-ID: <87efcernkp.fsf@anholt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [igt-dev] [PATCH] RFC: Make igts for cross-driver stuff mandatory? List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0920542304==" Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" To: Sean Paul , Daniel Vetter Cc: IGT development , Intel Graphics Development , DRI Development , amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-ID: --===============0920542304== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sean Paul writes: > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 10:50:49AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> Hi all, >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> I think there's 2 questions here: >>=20 >> - Do we want to make such testcases mandatory? >>=20 > > Yes, more testing =3D=3D 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 seem= s 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 every= one 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 incanta= tion, > 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 rem= oved > its usage. I've also had to cut out libunwind for cross-compiling on many occasions. Worst library. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE/JuuFDWp9/ZkuCBXtdYpNtH8nugFAlvR8OYACgkQtdYpNtH8 nugbnA//d38dKOKXQoc2QULqasRpO63vPklcmNSBj3ZcMjy67Vf24cL0XdeOePPT oiisV3PSMODrVmxLYPes1AifauI1CO9yu0hhOdXr7NOfHj4LG+YdORkWoRK3xXdR pThzY0J4zXTKzXUyemL7X1vFYhehUHdL1UVArS6/ZgLOjj0kLqbsMCB/mDQY1vrE huaTZt4xGtOzPNpxXqzaps1p9Z+XGZG/l1c7tlZtnIIdJCfKQHWnchTmtv9nf2cR SEmTMJRCXHstqq5kK7LfUEWRqnOM/iKAUd0L/+TMvtXSarXdGKbaXjaDP41AlzoI lwmCXCsqlVpBf1JFH48a9RIiEgJylMrxQAYAk8yRtjbzbVKLzBdZY64hgyWwJ4ed 7nqfp36b5pD6acZyibPskvwGnPzrCqjOsFqkjEiRT+3g5X7PG4ya+Q34F/LVE9yi NmgeCmF/x+LAHFEEXh+0hLK7iFsSQPrqAE6K1K57W2syB2GwW4Mrp/clMDgRf4YL s3iONXtgl2RxGRAF7m8G5cWOgKDCOjWSmfRFXv3sJLuPNszYGQKo+RPaOpuVbFx9 f1t+ClQ5/+qE4JohJ/QvmLt5gtKzg9ysTclyOs9ySd07Uyd93rZQgZkG1gQQy/pm ImwvBgooN2yB6+brtzpWONCVKSKzPZ4fxQEQhZ4iU9+aF+dGKdo= =kPxM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- --===============0920542304== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KSW50ZWwtZ2Z4 IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdApJbnRlbC1nZnhAbGlzdHMuZnJlZWRlc2t0b3Aub3JnCmh0dHBzOi8vbGlz dHMuZnJlZWRlc2t0b3Aub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vaW50ZWwtZ2Z4Cg== --===============0920542304==--