[Intel-gfx] Adding custom bugzilla fields

[Chris Wilson]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:05:58PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 09:11:06PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 06:31:16PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > I think we can condense the older platforms down a lot, maybe even just
> > > > GEN2, GEN3, GEN4. Or at least group desktop and mobile together, i.e.
> > > > 
> > > > I8XX, I915, I945, G33/PNV, I965, G4X (we put both under that tag usually).
> > > 
> > > I would actually vote for the opposite. We often find bugs that are GT
> > > specific in modern chips, and each of the early gen have different
> > > features sets and their own quirks.
> > > 
> > > So I would say split it by PCI ID, with human readable strings, both
> > > codename (inc. target feature set, GT + ULT/ULX/Halo etc) and market name
> > > (though given that 50% is just HD Graphics, very meh).
> > > 
> > > So long as can intelligently group based on the PCI ID, I think it will
> > > be of benefit long term.
> > 
> > Seems like that'll result in massive lists. And we can always denote
> > special-cases in the summary of the bug. Also maintaining all that
> > information accurately will be a pain and for many bugs it's not needed,
> > hence why I think a bit more coarseness would be good.

Another addendum: Often those patterns are not apparent until we have
many reports, at which point we have to go back through all the
duplicates to look for patterns. Maintaining the field upfront would
make those patterns stand out much earlier.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre