From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesse Barnes Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Displayport compliance testing Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:11:45 -0700 Message-ID: <20140722141145.4cddf4e5@jbarnes-desktop> References: <1405365047-6866-1-git-send-email-tprevite@gmail.com> <20140722064111.GE15237@phenom.ffwll.local> <20140722134845.08b9ebf5@jbarnes-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f178.google.com (mail-pd0-f178.google.com [209.85.192.178]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C8236E381 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:10:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f178.google.com with SMTP id w10so269441pde.23 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:10:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" To: Daniel Vetter Cc: intel-gfx List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:53:44 +0200 Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > Are you saying > > you'll reject this approach entirely? > > I'm saying that I don't see terrible lot of value in adding a bunch of > code for a sticker, and that we should look into making it actually > useful by testing the paths that end-users end up using. And we have > to keep this working once it's merged. > > But if it doesn't make sense to make this sticker useful while still > being able to get it then I'll reconsider. Yeah I think it depends on the test. We're supposed to go through existing paths for testing e.g. link training with different params (though with a fixed fb and mode), so getting coverage there is something we want regardless. But getting something like probing covered as part of the compliance testing may be something else entirely... -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center