Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH] drm/doc: Make igts for cross-driver stuff mandatory

From: "Wentland, Harry" <Harry.Wentland@amd.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	IGT development <igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: Petri Latvala <petri.latvala@intel.com>,
	Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau@arm.com>,
	Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>,
	"Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
	Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run>
Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH] drm/doc: Make igts for cross-driver stuff mandatory
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 19:00:12 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9d141cee-22b4-e0b0-6658-8c4a2afe6608@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190116163903.12785-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

On 2019-01-16 11:39 a.m., Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Compared to the RFC[1] no changes to the patch itself, but igt moved
> forward a lot:
> 
> - gitlab CI builds with: reduced configs/libraries, arm cross build
>   and a sysroot build (should address all the build/cross platform
>   concerns raised in the RFC discussions).
> 
> - tests reorganized into subdirectories so that the i915-gem tests
>   don't clog the main/shared tests directory anymore
> 
> - quite a few more non-intel people contributing/reviewing/committing
>   igt tests patches.
> 
> I think this addresses all the concerns raised in the RFC discussions,
> and assuming there's enough Acks and no new issues that pop up, we can
> go ahead with this.
> 
> 1: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10648851/
> Cc: Petri Latvala <petri.latvala@intel.com>
> Cc: Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hiler@intel.com>
> Cc: Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau@arm.com>
> Cc: Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run>
> Cc: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
> Cc: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>

I'm all for anything resembling TDD and standardizing on one test framework. IGT works quite well for us for testing display stuff. We still have a way to go but have been trying to adopt this requirement lately anyways for the DC driver. Can't really comment on anything beyond display, though, for AMD.

No matter how much I want this to be mandatory, seeing the discussions with ARM and the comment about lack of CRC on Nouveau makes me think that we might not be quite ready to go there. Implementing DWB is non-trivial. VKMS knows how to compute a CRC from a framebuffer, but that's the trivial part. Setting up the HW and SW to do DWB is the hard part.

Harry

> ---
>  Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
> index a752aa561ea4..413915d6b7d2 100644
> --- a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
> @@ -238,6 +238,13 @@ DRM specific patterns. Note that ENOTTY has the slightly unintuitive meaning of
>  Testing and validation
>  ======================
>  
> +Testing Requirements for userspace API
> +--------------------------------------
> +
> +New cross-driver userspace interface extensions, like new IOCTL, new KMS
> +properties, new files in sysfs or anything else that constitutes an API change
> +need to have driver-agnostic testcases in IGT for that feature.
> +
>  Validating changes with IGT
>  ---------------------------
>  
> 
_______________________________________________
igt-dev mailing list
igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev