From: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>, Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] drm/dp: Add a way to init/add a connector in separate steps
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2024 15:24:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z021G3tmmRTi4iyl@ideak-desk.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87ldwy5lvb.fsf@intel.com>
On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 02:07:36PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2024, Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> wrote:
> > It's not about whether we have a problem or not: you introduce new
> > framework functions, you need to have kunit tests to check their
> > behaviour.
>
> I don't fundamentally disagree with that goal, but it does seem like a
> pretty drastic policy change. I don't recall a discussion where we made
> that decision, nor can I find any documentation stating this. Or what
> exactly the requirement is; it's totally unclear to me.
>
> Had I been involved, I would've pointed out that while adding tests is
> good, it inevitably increases the friction of adding new stuff to drm
> core. It's super tempting for people to just get their jobs done. If
> doing the right thing adds yet another hurdle, we may see more stuff
> being added in drivers instead of drm core.
>
> (Case in point, we already hacked around the problem being solved here
> with commit d58f65df2dcb ("drm/i915/dp_mst: Fix connector initialization
> in intel_dp_add_mst_connector()"). We could've just dropped the ball
> right there.)
Fwiw, in this case adding tests for drm_connector_init_core() and
drm_connector_add() looks simple enough.
IIUC it's the 3 testcases in drmm_connector_init_tests[] performed for
drm_connector_init_core() and additional 3 test cases checking that (1)
drm_connector_init_core() doesn't add the connector to the connector
list, (2) drm_connector_add() adds it and (3) drm_connector_add() fails
(by not adding the connector to the list and emitting a dmesg WARN) if
drm_connector_init_core() was not called for the connector previously.
For the last test I actually need to add the corresponding assert/early
return to drm_connector_add().
If Maxim could confirm the above, I could resend the patchset adding
these tests.
--Imre
> BR,
> Jani.
>
>
> --
> Jani Nikula, Intel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-02 13:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-26 16:18 [PATCH v2 0/4] drm/dp: Expose only a properly inited connector Imre Deak
2024-11-26 16:18 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] drm/dp: Add a way to init/add a connector in separate steps Imre Deak
2024-11-29 14:26 ` Imre Deak
2024-11-29 14:46 ` Maxime Ripard
2024-11-29 15:58 ` Jani Nikula
2024-12-02 10:45 ` Maxime Ripard
2024-11-29 16:12 ` Imre Deak
2024-12-02 10:48 ` Maxime Ripard
2024-12-02 12:07 ` Jani Nikula
2024-12-02 13:24 ` Imre Deak [this message]
2024-12-02 15:07 ` Maxime Ripard
2024-12-02 15:31 ` Imre Deak
2024-12-02 15:06 ` Maxime Ripard
2024-12-02 15:44 ` Jani Nikula
2024-12-03 9:36 ` Maxime Ripard
2024-12-03 11:17 ` Jani Nikula
2024-12-02 16:35 ` Simona Vetter
2024-12-02 20:07 ` Imre Deak
2024-12-06 20:48 ` Simona Vetter
2024-11-26 16:18 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] drm/i915/dp_mst: Expose a connector to kernel users after it's properly initialized Imre Deak
2024-11-26 16:18 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] drm/i915/dp_mst: Fix error handling while adding a connector Imre Deak
2024-11-26 16:18 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] drm/i915/dp_mst: Use intel_connector vs. drm_connector pointer in intel_dp_mst.c Imre Deak
2024-11-26 16:51 ` ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: warning for drm/dp: Expose only a properly inited connector Patchwork
2024-11-26 17:05 ` ✓ i915.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2024-11-26 18:30 ` ✗ i915.CI.Full: failure " Patchwork
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=Z021G3tmmRTi4iyl@ideak-desk.fi.intel.com \
--to=imre.deak@intel.com \
--cc=airlied@redhat.com \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jani.nikula@intel.com \
--cc=maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com \
--cc=mripard@kernel.org \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=tzimmermann@suse.de \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox