[igt-dev] Must-Pass Test Suite for KMS drivers

[Rob Clark]

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 1:29 AM Maxime Ripard <maxime at cerno.tech> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 08:08:28AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 1:17 AM <maxime at cerno.tech> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Rob,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 08:48:15AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 5:43 AM <maxime at cerno.tech> wrote:
> > > > > I've discussing the idea for the past year to add an IGT test suite that
> > > > > all well-behaved KMS drivers must pass.
> > > > >
> > > > > The main idea behind it comes from v4l2-compliance and cec-compliance,
> > > > > that are being used to validate that the drivers are sane.
> > > > >
> > > > > We should probably start building up the test list, and eventually
> > > > > mandate that all tests pass for all the new KMS drivers we would merge
> > > > > in the kernel, and be run by KCi or similar.
> > > >
> > > > Let's get https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/502641/ merged
> > > > first, that already gives us a mechanism similar to what we use in
> > > > mesa to track pass/fail/flake
> > >
> > > I'm not sure it's a dependency per-se, and I believe both can (and
> > > should) happen separately.
> >
> > Basically my reasoning is that getting IGT green is a process that so
> > far is consisting of equal parts IGT test fixes, to clear out
> > lingering i915'isms, etc, and driver fixes.  Yes, you could do this
> > manually but the drm/ci approach seems like it would make it easier to
> > track, so it is easier to see what tests are being run on which hw,
> > and what the pass/fail/flake status is.  And the expectation files can
> > also be updated as we uprev the igt version being used in CI.
> >
> > I could be biased by how CI has been deployed (IMHO, successfully) in
> > mesa.. my experience there doesn't make me see any value in a
> > "mustpass" list.  But does make me see value in automating and
> > tracking status.  Obviously we want all the tests to pass, but getting
> > there is going to be a process.  Tracking that progress is the thing
> > that is useful now.
>
> Yeah, I understand where you're coming from, and for CI I agree that
> your approach looks like the best one.
>
> It's not what I'm trying to address though.
>
> My issue is that, even though I have a bunch of KMS experience by now,
> every time I need to use IGT, I have exactly zero idea what test I
> need to run to check that a given driver behaves decently.
>
> I have no idea which tests I should run, which tests are supposed to be
> working but can't really because of some intel-specific behavior, which
> tests are skipped but shouldn't, which tests are broken but should be,
> etc.

yeah, I feel your pain.. I think the best suggestion I can make atm is
to compare to the xfails from the other drivers, and if in doubt ask
on #igt

BR,
-R

> I don't want to have a nice table with everything green because there
> was no regression, I want to see which bugs I haven't found out are
> still lingering in my driver. I've been chasing bugs too many times
> where it turned out that there was a test for that in IGT somewhere,
> hidden in a 70k tests haystack with zero documentation.
>
> So, yeah, I get what you're saying, it makes sense, and please go
> forward with drm/ci. I still think we need to find a beginning of a
> solution for the issue I'm talking about.
>
> Maxime