Hi, On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 19:42, Wentland, Harry <Harry.Wentland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2019-01-22 2:19 p.m., Daniel Vetter wrote: > > I'd say we'll shrug these cases off as "can't be reasonable tested, > > won't have an igt". First driver team with hw that can be validated > > gets to fill the gaps :-) In practice still going to be a lot better > > than no tests at all, just exercising the feature will be useful, and > > will make it a lot easier for the next team to add the crc based tests > > on top. > > I think that's reasonable. After all, we want to start somewhere. > > Would it make sense to append something like ", if such a test can be reasonably made using IGT for the target HW." to make it clear to contributors that in cases like the one discussed this is at the reviewers discretion? > > With that change (or anything else that clarifies your intentions as described above) I'd be happy to give my AB. I could definitely get behind that as well. For what it's worth, we're (after a couple of stalls due to upstream rewrites) pushing forward execution of igt within KernelCI. The results are not yet visible within kernelci.org, but the tests are at least executing and we're hoping they'll be tracked and visible soon. If it helps, maybe we could draw up a list somewhere (README in igt? wiki?) of which tests seem to pass generically across a few drivers, which ones are expected to pass, which ones don't but really should, etc. I'm currently running on imx-drm (complicated by hitting a page-cache BUG!), and a couple of others are getting results from rockchip, vc4, and msm. Those are pretty well supported and actively maintained, so should give us a decent first cut at such a list. Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
