[igt-dev] [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] RFC: Make igts for cross-driver stuff mandatory?

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:17:30PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 at 18:51, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This is just to collect feedback on this idea, and see whether the
> > overall dri-devel community stands on all this. I think the past few
> > cross-vendor uapi extensions all came with igts attached, and
> > personally I think there's lots of value in having them: A
> > cross-vendor interface isn't useful if every driver implements it
> > slightly differently.
> >
> > I think there's 2 questions here:
> >
> > - Do we want to make such testcases mandatory?
> 
> Yes I think if at all practical it probably makes sense to have some
> mandatory test cases for all cross-vendor features, or features that
> might become cross vendor in the future.

I've created a few patches to test that in gitlab CI. I think the only
thing left now is CI'ing sysroot builds, but I don't know how to do that
myself.

> > - If yes, are we there yet, or is there something crucially missing
> >   still?
> 
> I think the does igt build in all the places needed is the main one,
> I've no idea what a baseline IGT test run looks like on non-intel hw,
> how useful is it?

We're in the process of moving i915 tests into a tests/i915/ subfolder. I
think after that we could try to them on some hardware (my long term plan
is to use vkms for that and put it into gitlab CI with qemu). We have
accidentally run igts on amdgpu instead of i915 on KBL-G (and our CI found
at least one bug in one of my refactor series), so stuff works :-)

Coverage is a bit a mixed bag I think, but that's always the case when you
retrofit a testsuite.
-Daniel

> 
> Acked-by: Dave Airlie <airlied at redhat.com>

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch