[PATCH] drm/doc: Document KUnit expectations

[Maíra Canal]

Hi Maxime,

On 13/01/25 07:11, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> The DRM and KMS frameworks and helpers gain more and more kunit
> coverage, so let's document what our expectations are.
> 
> Suggested-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard at kernel.org>
> 
> ---
> 
> I'm not too sure where those guidelines should be placed. Is it the best
> place?
> ---
>   Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst | 7 +++++++
>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst b/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst
> index cb9ae282771c..94f93fd3b8a0 100644
> --- a/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst
> @@ -206,10 +206,17 @@ follows:
>   	The configuration included in ``.kunitconfig`` should be as generic as
>   	possible.
>   	``CONFIG_VIRTIO_UML`` and ``CONFIG_UML_PCI_OVER_VIRTIO`` are not
>   	included in it because they are only required for User Mode Linux.
>   
> +KUnit Coverage Rules
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +KUnit support is gradually added to the DRM framework and helpers. There's no
> +general requirement for the framework and helpers to have KUnit tests at the
> +moment. However, patches that are affecting a function or helper already
> +covered by KUnit tests must provide tests if the change calls for one.
>   

Acked-by: Maíra Canal <mcanal at igalia.com>

Best Regards,
- Maíra

>   Legacy Support Code
>   ===================
>   
>   The section very briefly covers some of the old legacy support code