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

[Daniel Vetter]

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?

- If yes, are we there yet, or is there something crucially missing
  still?

And of course there's a bunch of details to figure out. Like we
probably want to also recommend the selftests/unit-tests in
drivers/gpu/drm/selftest, since fairly often that's a much more
effective approach to checking the details than from userspace.

Feedback and thoughts very much appreciated.

Cheers, Daniel
---
 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 4b4bf2c5eac5..91cf6e4b6303 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.
+
 Validating changes with IGT
 ---------------------------
 
-- 
2.19.1