[igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t v3 1/2] tests/intel-ci: Add basic PSR2 tests to fast feedback test list

[Dhinakaran Pandiyan]

On Wed, 2019-01-23 at 09:17 -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 05:51:11PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 5:45 PM Rodrigo Vivi <
> > rodrigo.vivi at intel.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 01:07:32PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 01:37:19PM +0200, Petri Latvala wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 05:09:49PM -0800, José Roberto de
> > > > > Souza wrote:
> > > > > > Lets run the same PSR1 basic tests for PSR2 to caught PSR2
> > > > > > regressions faster.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> > > > > > Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan at intel.com>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza at intel.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  tests/intel-ci/fast-feedback.testlist | 4 ++++
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/tests/intel-ci/fast-feedback.testlist
> > > > > > b/tests/intel-ci/fast-feedback.testlist
> > > > > > index da3c4c8e..e48cb8a5 100644
> > > > > > --- a/tests/intel-ci/fast-feedback.testlist
> > > > > > +++ b/tests/intel-ci/fast-feedback.testlist
> > > > > > @@ -227,6 +227,10 @@ igt at kms_psr@primary_page_flip
> > > > > >  igt at kms_psr@cursor_plane_move
> > > > > >  igt at kms_psr@sprite_plane_onoff
> > > > > >  igt at kms_psr@primary_mmap_gtt
> > > > > > +igt at kms_psr@psr2_primary_page_flip
> > > > > > +igt at kms_psr@psr2_cursor_plane_move
> > > > > > +igt at kms_psr@psr2_sprite_plane_onoff
> > > > > > +igt at kms_psr@psr2_primary_mmap_gtt
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The BAT results mail said success because these are new
> > > > > tests, but do
> > > > > note that they failed. They must pass to get onto the BAT
> > > > > list.
> > > > 
> > > > Also, adding all kinds of tests to BAT to validate features
> > > > doesn't scale.
> > > > We need some way to run these tests on specific machines as
> > > > part of the
> > > > follow-up shard runs ... Otherwise we're stuck with a huge
> > > > pressure to add
> > > > all kinds of super-important-feature-right-now things to BAT.
> > > 
> > > I understand and I agree with your point. But on this very
> > > specific case
> > > no shard have PSR1 or PSR2 panels.
> > 
> > Yeah. Same way that no shard has:
> > -mst
> > -hdcp
> > -dsi
> > -4k
> > - ...

This is a chicken and egg problem, without testing, we can't enable new
features.

I believe there was some problem in acquiring the same panel for all
shard instances. Another issue that came up was shard machines had to
be stable and production NUC's were preferred. Which means, no eDP.

 
> 
> "coincidentally" all display related :-)
> 
> > 
> > The list is very long. Everyone wants their feature to be an
> > exception. Everyone's feature only increase test time by "not
> > much".
> 
> Yeap, I understand that everybody will put their feature as
> important,
> but for me another factor that justify that increase is the "fragile"
> part.
> 
> For me the important + fragile deserves a space even if we have to
> wait
> minutes more for the result :/
> 
> > 
> > > Also this shouldn't increase the test time much, because machines
> > > with PSR1 are
> > > already running the PSR1 tests only, machines without PSR are not
> > > running
> > > anything and machines. Only machines with PSR2 panels that are
> > > now coming from
> > > no PSR tests to running this few PSR2 tests.
> > 
> > Ok, I guess that ship sailed with the psr1 tests already then.
> 
> besides, I think MST also deserves this "privilege" :)
> 
> > -Daniel
> > 
> > > 
> > > > -Daniel
> > > > --
> > > > Daniel Vetter
> > > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > > > http://blog.ffwll.ch
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Daniel Vetter
> > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch