From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] drm/i915: Add automated testing
 support for Displayport compliance testing
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:24:23 +0200
Message-ID: <20141024082423.GV26941@phenom.ffwll.local>
References: <1412869090-48010-1-git-send-email-tprevite@gmail.com>
 <1412869090-48010-2-git-send-email-tprevite@gmail.com>
 <CA+gsUGQxDZDAHtwAPC9k6C0PSb3WiPV8Mua5hLFoOdB=SDK3Yg@mail.gmail.com>
 <544933C7.4070904@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com (mail-wg0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D63386E585
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 01:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id k14so564066wgh.7
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 01:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <544933C7.4070904@gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
 <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
 <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Sender: "Intel-gfx" <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
To: Todd Previte <tprevite@gmail.com>
Cc: Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 09:58:47AM -0700, Todd Previte wrote:
> On 10/20/2014 10:48 AM, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> >2014-10-09 12:38 GMT-03:00 Todd Previte <tprevite@gmail.com>:
> >>+/* Displayport compliance testing - PHY pattern testing */
> >>+static uint8_t
> >>+intel_dp_autotest_phy_pattern(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> >>+{
> >>+       uint8_t test_result = DP_TEST_NAK;
> >>+       return test_result;
> >>+}
> >I guess a lot of people would have just made the code return NAK
> >without even defining/calling these functions above.
> 
> It came down to two ways of implementing this initial patch. I could have
> NAK'd in the handler and omitted these functions until they were fully
> implemented. Or I could do what I did here, which was to put the skeleton in
> place and add the flesh to bones when ready. To me, this seems to make more
> sense to me because it gets the structure in place and builds on it in
> subsequent patches.

Random drive-by comment: Imo rolling out the scaffolding in this patch
here looks ok. Personally I'd probably have done what Paulo suggested
too. Maybe even with a default switch that just yells with a
DRM_ERROR("Test not yet implement: %i\n", testcode) and then fill things
out step-by-step. But that's kinda a bikeshed ;-)
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch