On 2018年10月26日 16:32, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 5:50 AM Zhou, David(ChunMing)
<David1.Zhou@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Make igt for cross-driver, I think you should rename it first, not an intel specific. NO company wants their employee working on other company stuff.
You can rename it to DGT(drm graphics test), and published following libdrm, or directly merge to libdrm, then everyone can use it and develop it in same page, which is only my personal opinion.
We renamed it ot IGT gpu tools, that was even enough for ARM folks.
If this is seriously what AMD expects before considering, I'm not sure
what to say.
Alex, Christian, is this the official AMD stance that you can't touch
stuff because of the letter i?
Nope, as I said last, this is just my personal thought. And I'm not sure
what opinion of others.
-David
-Daniel
Regards,
David
-----Original Message-----
From: dri-devel <dri-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Eric
Anholt
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 12:36 AM
To: Sean Paul <sean@xxxxxxxxxx>; Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: IGT development <igt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Intel Graphics
Development <intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; DRI Development <dri-
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH] RFC: Make igts for cross-driver stuff
mandatory?
Sean Paul <sean@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 10:50:49AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
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?
Yes, more testing == better code.
- If yes, are we there yet, or is there something crucially missing
still?
In my experience, no. Last week while trying to replicate an intel-gfx
CI failure, I tried compiling igt for one of my (intel) chromebooks.
It seems like cross-compilation (or, in my case, just specifying
prefix/ld_library_path/sbin_path) is broken on igt. If we want to
impose restrictions across the entire subsystem, we need to make sure
that everyone can build and deploy igt easily.
I managed to hack around everything and get it working, but I still
haven't tried switching out the toolchain. Once we have some GitLab CI
to validate cross-compilation, then we can consider making IGT mandatory.
It's possible that I'm just a meson n00b and didn't use the right
incantation, so maybe it already works, but then we need better
documentation.
I've pasted my horrible hacks below, I also didn't have libunwind, so
removed its usage.
I've also had to cut out libunwind for cross-compiling on many occasions.
Worst library.
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
