[igt-dev] [PATCH] drm/doc: Make igts for cross-driver stuff mandatory

[Daniel Vetter]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 12:38 PM Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau at arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 05:39:03PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Compared to the RFC[1] no changes to the patch itself, but igt moved
> > forward a lot:
> >
> > - gitlab CI builds with: reduced configs/libraries, arm cross build
> >   and a sysroot build (should address all the build/cross platform
> >   concerns raised in the RFC discussions).
> >
> > - tests reorganized into subdirectories so that the i915-gem tests
> >   don't clog the main/shared tests directory anymore
> >
> > - quite a few more non-intel people contributing/reviewing/committing
> >   igt tests patches.
> >
> > I think this addresses all the concerns raised in the RFC discussions,
> > and assuming there's enough Acks and no new issues that pop up, we can
> > go ahead with this.
> >
> > 1: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10648851/
> > Cc: Petri Latvala <petri.latvala at intel.com>
> > Cc: Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hiler at intel.com>
> > Cc: Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau at arm.com>
> > Cc: Sean Paul <sean at poorly.run>
> > Cc: Eric Anholt <eric at anholt.net>
> > Cc: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher at amd.com>
> > Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied at redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst | 7 +++++++
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
> > index a752aa561ea4..413915d6b7d2 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
> > @@ -238,6 +238,13 @@ DRM specific patterns. Note that ENOTTY has the slightly unintuitive meaning of
> >  Testing and validation
> >  ======================
> >
> > +Testing Requirements for userspace API
> > +--------------------------------------
> > +
> > +New cross-driver userspace interface extensions, like new IOCTL, new KMS
> > +properties, new files in sysfs or anything else that constitutes an API change
> > +need to have driver-agnostic testcases in IGT for that feature.
>
> From an aspirational point of view I am fine with this and you can have
> my Acked-by: Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau at arm.com>.
>
> From a practical point of view I would like to see a matrix of KMS APIs
> that are being validated and the drivers that have been tested. Otherwise,
> the next person that comes and tries to add a new IOCTL, KMS property or new
> file in sysfs is going to discover that he has subscribed to a much bigger
> task of getting enough KMS drivers testable in the first place.

This is what the _new_ features is about, no expectation to write
tests for all the existing stuff. Although I think there's not really
any big gaps in igt anymore, we do have at least some (rather rough
and coarse in some case) test coverage for everything I think. Should
this be clarified further?
-Daniel

>
> Best regards,
> Liviu
>
>
> > +
> >  Validating changes with IGT
> >  ---------------------------
> >
> > --
> > 2.20.1
> >
>
> --
> ====================
> | I would like to |
> | fix the world,  |
> | but they're not |
> | giving me the   |
>  \ source code!  /
>   ---------------
>     ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel



-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch