[PATCH] drm/doc: Document KUnit expectations

[Maxime Ripard]

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.
 
 Legacy Support Code
 ===================
 
 The section very briefly covers some of the old legacy support code
-- 
2.47.1